1951-04-12

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. Brown (Essex West) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to consider Bill No. 79, respecting Indians, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Fulton:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton) presented the first report of the special committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. A. Mutch (Winnipeg South) presented the first report of the special committee on veterans affairs, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. Jean Francois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: Before the motion is put, I should like to know if members of parliament who have grievances on behalf of returned men will have an opportunity of submitting their cases to the committee in order to try to get some help for these men. It seems that the pension commission is helpless, and I can say the same thing for the commission on allowances. I have every sympathy for the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lapointe). He is an able gentleman, and a personal friend of mine. The members of the pension commission, and the members of the commission for allowances, are procrastinating. It is useless to argue the case of any soldier with them. I have some pitiful cases, and it is impossible to reach the heart of these commission members in discussing these problems which are of vital importance to the soldiers and their families.
Will the members of the house who do not belong to the committee have an opportunity of appearing before the committee with these files? Some of them are voluminous.
The pension commission seems to take it for granted that in some cases the soldiers suffered from disabilities before enlistment. I have one case in particular in which I was told the soldier was suffering from heart trouble before his enlistment, and that his five years of active military service had not increased his disability. I wrote to the department that it was absurd, and I was informed a month later that he was not suffering from heart trouble. This was an example.
Another case is that of a soldier, number 597, of the first war. He was in service during the whole of the war. He was overseas for at least four years, if not five. He was a big fellow, with the appearance of a strong man. I could not get anything for him except some treatment at the hospital which did him no good. He enlisted again in the second war, and it is impossible to get a pension for him. There are other cases where soldiers have a small pension, and there is the allowance board, which does nothing to give them an opportunity to live as decent men are supposed to live.
I have many cases which I could cite. The doctors are all fools except perhaps one or two. I keep in reserve some cases of murder which I have already mentioned in the house-murder by the army doctors of the province of Ontario and of the province of Quebec. There was another one who escaped in the province of New Brunswick. He had protection from the high-ranking people in the medical service of the army. Some army doctors are good. Some others are rotten. This is one of the reasons why I object so greatly to a program of health insurance, because those army doctors will have some kind of preference. I think of the district medical officer at Montreal. Who is the district medical officer at Montreal? He is a complete failure with regard to medical qualifications. What is his record as a medical officer? He was overseas on a Cook's tour for a month or two, and he was to come to Ottawa. I strongly protested at the time to the then hon. member for Halifax, Mr. Macdonald-who was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence- and to Walter Tucker, who helped me a great deal when he was parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I am fighting the case of the soldiers who cannot expect any justice from the pension

Reports of Committees commission or from the allowance board. One day I decided to send a motion to the Clerk of the House, but unf ortunately it was not signed, and according to the rules it did not appear on the order paper. The motion called for the abolition of the pension commission and the allowance board. So long as the soldiers get no benefits from these boards, what is the use of paying big salaries to these men who give relief by a dropper to the soldier?
I will ask the minister to consider the remarks I have made in the friendliest spirit to him, but I have not the same spirit with regard to these boards and commissions. They are there to earn a big salary and to do nothing. They are all alike, from Melville down. The other day when I saw him, with all his decorations, I thought of the poor devils who have such a great struggle and who cannot get any help. We have to write and write again, but we never receive a decent answer from the silly and selfish bureaucrats. I hope that there will be reform in due course and that the members who sit on the committee will be ready to defend the case of the soldier instead of lying down before such awful bureaucrats.


Mr. Speaker:: Is is the -pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister in agreement with the tirade of the hon. member for Temiscouata a few minutes ago against the war veterans allowance board and the Canadian pension commission?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: In answer to my hon. friend's question I may say that I do not subscribe to the remarks made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I do not subscribe at all to the personal remarks he directed against some members of the commission nor to his remarks as to the work done by the pension commission and the war veterans allowance board.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hope the committee will be fairer than the hon. member.



CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in his discustMr Pouliot.]
sion of the budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) stated that the Minister of Trade and Commerce would make a statement on deferred capital cost allowances, and at the conclusion of his budget speech the minister tabled a copy of order in council P.C. 1778, dated April 10, 1951, which altered the regulations affecting capital cost allowances under the Income Tax Act.
The purposes of these changes in the regulations is to defer capital cost allowances for a period of three years beyond the date of acquisition; that is a total of four years, except in certain specified cases. As the Minister of Finance explained:
What we need is a stiff financial deterrent that will affect particularly the businessman who is considering the kind of investment which is attractive, not because of its long-term soundness but because it can be written off out of the expected high profits of the next few years, at a time when he expects the rate of corporate income tax to be abnormally high.
To provide this deterrent it is proposed to defer for a period of four years the right to charge depreciation on all capital assets acquired after April 10, 1951, excepting certain classes of assets defined in the regulations and certain additional kinds of assets when certified as eligible by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Under the proposal, the right to charge depreciation as an expense is deferred, not cancelled or even diminished. For example, $10,000 of ineligible assets acquired after April 10, 1951, will earn no depreciation for tax purposes during the next four years; but in 1955 it can be transferred by the depreciable asset account at its full original cost. If it is a type of asset that can be written off in say ten years, it will be written off in 1955 to 1964 instead of in 1951 to 1960.
The deterrent will particularly affect the businessman whose decision to make a capital expenditure is strongly influenced by the expectation that he can write off a large fraction of his cost at a time when both profits and tax rates are abnormally high, particularly if it is a kind of investment with uncertain profit-making possibilities six or eight years hence. In other words it will compel the businessman to give primary attention to the long-term prospects of proposed capital expenditures, and, if outside financial participation is required, lenders will also take this view.
There will, therefore, be a stiff deterrent on projects of uncertain long-run value and also on capital expenditures on frills, gadgets and generally "dressing up" offices, stores and buildings. This deterrent should reduce the competitive scramble for scarce materials and equipment and thus place less strain on direct controls. Such materials and equipment will tend to go to those who can make the best long-term use of them. Bidders who are anticipating short-run quick profits will tend to withdraw from the market.
One further advantage is that the government will not be telling anyone that he cannot do this or that. What will happen is that a financial penalty will be put, in the short run, on those who go ahead with less essential expenditures.
These revised depreciation regulations will go into effect immediately and will apply to all capital assets acquired after April 10, 1951.
That is the end of the quotation from the budget speech.

Current capital cost allowances will continue to be available on all property acquired up to and including April 10, 1951. Determination of the date of acquisition will be made by the Department of National Revenue in accordance with its usual practice in such cases.
With respect to property acquired after April 10, 1951, current capital cost allowances will be allowed to individual farmers, fishermen and professional men. Current allowances will also continue to be available to all taxpayers where the property acquired falls into any of the following categories set forth in schedule B of the income tax regulations:
Class 1. This class covers such properties as bridges, canals, culverts, dams, et cetera.
Class 2. This class covers such properties as pipe lines and certain plant connected with the production or distribution of electrical energy, gas and water.
Class 4. This class covers properties of a railway system, a telegraph or telephone system and a tramway or trolley bus system.
Class 9. This class covers such properties as radar equipment and radio transmission equipment.
Class 10. This class covers automotive equipment, gas or oil well equipment, mining machinery equipment and some other items.
Class 12. This class covers certain articles that have a limited life and can be depreciated entirely within a year.
Class 14. This class covers certain patents, franchises, concessions and licences.
As I have said properties which fall into any of the foregoing classes can be depreciated in the normal way and will not be subject to certification by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Similarly, current capital cost allowances will be available without certification with respect to all residential properties, that is, houses and apartment blocks, and with respect to all properties which replace those that have been destroyed by fire, flood, wind, lightning or other act of God.
I now come to those properties acquired after April 10, 1951, which will be eligible for current capital cost allowances only if a certificate is issued by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. These fall into two categories: (1) a property acquired for the fulfilment of a defence contract or subcontract or for a purpose which contributes to the defence of Canada; (2) a property acquired by a taxpayer for carrying on certain businesses.
Let me deal first with properties which are acquired for defence purposes. Hon. members will, I think, readily understand the reason
Capital Cost Allowances for this provision. The government does not wish to discourage in any way capital expenditures which will enable Canadian industry to build up its productive facilities to meet Canada's defence needs. Moreover in some cases the investment may have a use limited to the defence period, and it would be inequitable to defer capital cost allowances for four years.
Taxpayers who have defence contracts and who find it necessary to acquire properties in order to fulfil defence contracts or subcontracts should apply to the capital cost allowances division of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the necessary forms and information. Before a certificate is granted, it will be necessary for the taxpayer to give evidence that the defence contract cannot be fulfilled unless the property in question is acquired.
Certificates may also be issued with respect to properties acquired by the taxpayer which in the opinion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce contribute to the defence of Canada. This provision is included to enable the minister to give a certificate for projects which, though not undertaken for the fulfilment or specific defence contracts or subcontracts, are nevertheless important as a means of increasing supplies of some basic material or commodity or of supplying some essential service. Such certificates will be issued only in exceptional cases.
In the second category is a group of basic industries listed in the order in council. Broadly, the industries covered include primary industries, industries engaged in the processing, including smelting and refining, of raw materials, and enterprises providing a utility or hospital service.
The policy in this category will be to issue certificates of eligibility for properties acquired by the taxpayer that are necessary to the carrying on of these businesses. Certificates will not be issued, however, if the property acquired is primarily used for the purpose of hotel or office use, commercial service, finance, wholesale trade, retail trade or renting for other than residential habitation.
Taxpayers who fall into the list of businesses included in this second category should apply to the capital cost allowances division of the Department of Trade and Commerce for forms and other information.
Before concluding this statement I should like to add just one comment, and that is that in administering these regulations neither the Department of Trade and Commerce nor any other department of government is making a decision as to whether or not any particular capital expenditure should be made.

Aeronautics Act
That is for the taxpayer to decide. As my colleague the Minister of Finance said, " . . . the government will not be telling anyone that he cannot do this or that."
These regulations are another aspect of the government's policy to combat inflation. They are designed to reduce the competition for scarce materials and equipment, and thus to place less strain on direct controls.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. S. Sinnoli (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On the front page of the Winnipeg Tribune of April 10 I noticed an article which is headed "Sinnott Spanked." I want to say that I was not spanked, and that I believe the man who wrote this article possibly did not read, Hansard in the right way. As reported at page 1768 of Hansard, when I made reference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), this is what I said:
I see him in his seat now, and I would not do this if he were not here.
Further down on the page Mr. Speaker is reported as follows:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is in his seat.
What I object to, Mr. Speaker, is this. In the press report we read:
Speaker Macdonald interjected that while Knowles was not in his seat and had not objected to the remark, he himself did not think the words "public enemy" should be applied to a member of the house.
My point of privilege is this. I do not attack an hon. member when he is not in his seat. It is plain enough in Hansard that the hon. member was in his seat when I made this accusation.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that I was in my seat but that I felt no concern about the remarks of the hon. member.



AERONAUTICS ACT


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisier of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 197, to amend the Aeronautics Act.


Mr. Graydon:: Will the minister explain?


Lionel Chevrier: The object of this bill is to amend the Aeronautics Act so as to permit the minister, with the approval of the governor in council, to make regulations covering the zoning of airports. Because of indus-

trial, commercial and residential construction that has taken place around airports, it has now become necessary to control the height, use and location of buildings and structures in the vicinity.


Gordon Graydon: The minister speaks about
the zoning of airports and the properties around them. Would that not be a matter of consultation and arrangement among the dominion government, the provincial governments and the municipalities in the areas concerned?


Lionel Chevrier: This legislation is clearly
within dominion jurisdiction. It has first of all been submitted for approval to the government's legal counsel-the Department of Justice-and they have approved the wording as it will eventually come before the house.


Gordon Graydon: Does it apply only to buildings that are on dominion government property? If it does not, then I fancy the minister must be acting outside the jurisdiction of the federal power.


Lionel Chevrier: That will be a matter to discuss, I think, when we come to second reading; but in any event it does go beyond the scope of federal construction. It seeks to provide regulations for the protection of aerial navigation, and it is clearly within the decision of the privy council.


Mr. Drew:: Do I understand that it will
be within the authority of the bill as it is introduced, if it becomes law, to declare that certain zones, not actually taken over as dominion government property or the property of any agency of the government, can be used only for some particular purpose which would not involve the construction of buildings dangerous to aircraft in and out of the airport in question?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, the control is not over the buildings themselves; the control is over the height and the location. It will nbt affect property or civil rights, but it will affect obstacles that might impede safe aerial navigation, such as chimneys and other high structures, antennae and the like.


Gordon Graydon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker,
but may I ask one more question? The matter is one of urgent importance to us in the Malton area. Will this interfere with residential building programs which are in progress in a section such as Malton where there is an acute shortage of housing?


Lionel Chevrier: If they are a sufficient
distance away from the airstrips it would not affect them in any way whatsoever.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Argue:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the members of the advisory committee to the Canadian wheat board?
2.	What is the main occupation of each?
3.	What members are presently engaged in the production of wheat in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta or the Peace river area of British Columbia?


Mr. Mcllraith:: 1.	F. H. Clendenning, president, Empire Shipping Co., Vancouver, B.C.; C. E. Hayles, president, Canadian Consolidated Grain Co. Ltd., Winnipeg; J. C.A. Nijdam, president, Continental Grain Co. (Canada) Ltd., Winnipeg; D. I. Walker, president, Purity Flour Mills Ltd., Toronto; J. Theo Roy, Board of Trade building, Montreal; R. C. Brown, managing director, The Country Guide, Winnipeg; L. Hutchinson, director, Alberta Wheat Pool, Calgary; J. H. Wesson, president, Saskatchewan Pool Elevators Ltd., Regina; J. A. McCowan, Summerberry, Sask.; F. Petty-piece, Auld, Ontario; P. Farnalls, Halkirk, Alberta.
2.	Indicated above, except in the case of Mr. J. Theo Roy, who is an eastern feed grain dealer, and Messrs. Farnalls, Hutchinson, McCowan and Pettypiece, who are producers. Messrs. Brown and Wesson are also producers.
3.	Messrs. Brown, Farnalls, Hutchinson, McCowan and Wesson.



NIAGARA FALLS, ONT., VETERANS HOUSING PROJECT

Mr. Coldwell:: 1.	Is there a veterans housing project situated on McRae and other streets in Niagara Falls, Ontario, which is operated by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?
2.	If so, when the veterans were originally settled in this project, were they informed that the houses would not be available for sale for ten years?
3.	Has this policy been changed?
4.	Did Mr. W. W. Scott of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation inform the city council of Niagara Falls on February 6, 1950, that the homes in this project would be sold only to the present tenants and that if these tenants refused to buy they would be permitted to continue to rent?
5.	Are tenants in this housing project now being forced to move in order that their homes may be sold to anyone who is able and willing to buy?
6.	What is the present policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation with respect to the houses in this project?


Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Yes.
Questions
2.	No. The agreement between the city of Niagara Falls and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation provided that the houses could be sold any time at the discretion of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation subject to payment of a stipulated amount for each building lot on which a house was built.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes. This being the policy at that time.
5 and 6. The tenants have first priority to
purchase. Vacant houses are held vacant for sixty days if necessary, for sale. A tenant who is unwilling to purchase will be requested to move to alternative housing owned by the corporation if an acceptable offer has been received to purchase the house occupied by such a tenant.



POULTRY INDUSTRY


Mr. Wright:: 1.	What has been the total number of poultry destroyed to date as a result of the outbreak of Newcastle disease in the province of British Columbia?
2.	What is the rate of indemnity and the amount paid?
3.	What was the first policy of the department for the eradication of this disease?
4.	Has this policy been changed, and if so, on what date, and for what reason?
5.	What number of birds have been given vaccine treatment?
6.	Has this treatment been discontinued?
7.	What investigation was made by the Department of Agriculture as to the effectiveness of this treatment before using it?
8.	Has this treatment been used successfully on a major scale in any other country?


Mr. McCubbin:: 1.	588,801.
2.	(a) See schedule on next page; (b) $859,423.58.
3.	Eradication by destruction of all birds on infected premises, followed by a thorough cleaning and disinfection.
4.	No. Policy supplemented July 17, 1950, by use of killed vaccine. On February 14, 1951, the Doyle-Wright vaccine was substituted for the killed vaccine for the purpose of establishing mass immunity in the infected area.
5.	531,786.
6.	No.
7.	The Animal Diseases Research Institute, Hull, Que., investigated and thoroughly tested, by treatment of many birds, all vaccines before they were used by the department.
8.	The Doyle-Wright vaccine presently in use in British Columbia is being used extensively by the British authorities in Egypt. Reports concerning its value are not yet available.
Questions

2(a).
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Production Service-Health of Animals Division
GUIDE TO CURRENT MARKET VALUES OF POULTRY AND EGGS-effective October 1, 1950
-	Tur- keys	c Cap- ons	omraercial Chickens	Chickens-Pen Ped. & R.O.P. Females	Pen Ped. Tur- keys	Chickens Individual Ped.	Ind. Ped. Tur- keysM.	P.	C.	Pullets	Cockerels	Pullets	Cockerels	Eggs.-	Chicken, Hatching	.07	.30	.62	Chicken, market	.04	Turkey, hatching	.38	Goose, hatching	(.20)	Duck, hatching	(.10)	Age- 1 day	.75	.15	.30	.07	.60	.60	2.00	1.25	1.25	2.50" lwk	.95	.19	.34	.11	.64	.64	2.20	1.29	1.29	2.70" 2 wks	1.10	.23	.38	.15	.68	.68	2.35	1.33	1.33	2.85" 3 wks	1.25	.27	.42	.19	.72	.72	2.50	1.37	1.37	3.00" 4 wks	1.40	.30	.31	.46	.23	.76	.76	2.65	1.41	1.41	3.15" 5 wks	1.55	.39	.35	.50	.27	.80	.80	2.80	1.45	1.45	3.306 wks	1.75	.41	.39	.54	.31	.84	.84	3.00	1.49	1.49	3.507 wks	1.95	.47	.43	.58	.35	.88	.88	3.20	1.53	1.53	3.708 wks	2.15	.53	.47	.62	.39	.92	.92	3.40	1.57	1.57	3.90" 9 wks	2.35	.63	.55	.71	.48	1.01	1.01	3.60	1.66	1.66	4.10" 10 wks	2.55	.74	.63	.80	.57	1.10	1.10	3.80	1.75	1.75	4.30" 11 wks	2.75	.85	.71	.89	.66	1.19	1.19	4.00	1.84	1.84	4.50" 12 wks	2.95	.96	.79	.98	.75	1.28	1.28	4 20	1.93	1.93	4.70" 13 wks	3.15	1.07	.87	1.07	.84	1.37	1.37	4.40	2.02	2.02	4.90" 14 wks	3.35	1.19	.95	1.15	.93	1.46	1.46	4.60	2.11	2.11	5.10" 15 wks	3.55	1.31	1.25	1.02	1.55	1.55	4.80	2.20	2.20	5.3016 wks	3.75	1.41	1.35	1.10	1.75	1.75	5.00	2.55	2.55	5.5017 wks	4.00	1.52	1.45	1.18	1.95	1.95	5.25	2.95	2.95	5.75" 18 wks	4.25	1.63	1.55	1.26	2.20	2.20	5.50	3.75	3.35	6.00" 19 wks	4.50	1.74	1.65	1.34	2.50	2.50	5.75	3.75	3.75	6.25" 20 wks	4.75	1.84	1.75	1.42	2.80	2.80	6.00	4.20	4.20	6.50" 21 wks	5.05	1.85	1.50	3.00	3.00	6.30	4.65	4.65	6.80" 22 wks	5.35	1.95	1.58	3.30	3.30	6.60	5.10	5.10	7.10" 23 wks	5.65	2.05	1.66	3.65	3.65	6.90	5.55	5.55	7.40" 24 wks	5.95	2.15	4.00}	5.00*	7.20	6.00*	7.50*	7.70" 25 wks	6.25	2.15	4.00	5.00	7.50	6.00	7.50	8.00" 26 wks	6.55	2.15	4.00	5.00	7.80	6.00	7.50	8.30" 27 wks	6.85	2.15	4.00	5.00	8.10	6.00	7.50	8.60" 28 wks	7.15	2.15	4.00	5.00	8.40	6.00	7.50	8.90" 29 wks	2.15	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.50	" 30 wks	2.15	4.00	5.00	6.00	7.50	" 31-35 wks	2.10	3.85	4.60	6.00	7.50	" 36-40 wks	2.05	3.70	4.20	6.00	7.50	" 41-45 wks	2.00	3.55	3.80	6.00	7.50	" 46-52 wks	1.95	3.35	3.40	6.00	7.50	" 13 Mos	1.85	3.15	3.00	6.00	7.50	" 14 Mos	1.75	2.95	2.60	6.00	7.50	15 Mos	1.70	2.75	2.15	6.00	7.50	16 Mos. and over	1.65	2.50	1.65	6.00	7.00	10.00	12 0015.00	17.50Breeder turkeys	9.00	(January to March).	6.00	(April)	5.00	(May)	Ducks and geese	4.55	
* Must carry R.O.P. or Crown leg bands.
I Must carry official leg bands.
Beitsville white turkeys-25 per cent reduction in value over one day old.
[Mr. McOnHbin.)



MARATHON CORPORATION


Mr. Thalcher:: 1.	Did the Marathon corporation of Ontario pay export duties of any kind in each of the years 1948, 1949 and 1950?
2.	If so, on how many cords of wood in each of the above-mentioned years?
3.	What was the amount of such payments in each year?


Mr. Sinclair:: The federal government does not levy export duties on wood exported from Canada.



OKANAGAN FLOOD CONTROL

Mr. Jones:: 1.	In what years was money voted for the project known as the Okanagan flood control?
2.	What amount was voted each year?
3.	What amount was spent each year?
4.	What progress has been made to date with this project?
5.	When is the project expected to be completed?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1. 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51.
2. 1948-49, $75,000; 1949-50, $500,000; 195051, $480,000.
3.	1948-49, nil; 1949-50, $20,771; 1950-51, $10,977.82.
4.	Surveys have been made to determine the extent and type of work to be done on the project. Plans and specifications have been drawn up, but so far it has not been possible to proceed with the work due to objections raised by the fisheries department of the state of Washington.
5.	Tenders will be called as soon as the state of Washington signifies that it is satisfied. It is estimated that the project will take three years to complete after the contract has been awarded.



POSTAL SERVICE


Mr. Harkness:: 1.	How many men have been hired by the Post Office Department in Calgary, during the past six months?
2.	How many of these men are veterans of either the first or second great war?
3.	How many of these men are still employed with the Post Office Department?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: 1.	12.
2.	3.
3.	6.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul E. Cote (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should
Supply-Transport
like to give the answer to a question asked yesterday on the orders of the day by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Maltais).
(Translation):
The hon. member inquired whether the Hollinger North Shore Company requested that refugees be admitted to Canada for employment in its plants.
I must inform the hon. member that the Department of Labour received no such request, nor does anything indicate that this company intends to place any request for the admission of non-Canadian workers. If, perchance, any such request were made, it would first, like any other application of this nature, be submitted to the offices of the national employment service in the district concerned, and throughout the country if necessary, to make sure that no workers are available locally to fill the jobs. Only after those usual precautions had been taken could a request of this nature be given attention and favourable consideration.
(Text):

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
471. Departmental administration, $1,199,818.
Mr. Coldwell:: I should like to say a few words about the report of the royal commission on transportation, which was discussed to some extent the other evening.
I think that the members of the board, the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Dr. H. F. Angus and Dr. H. A. Innis, did a very fine job indeed for Canada when they made this inquiry and wrote their report. The report to a very large extent vindicates the position taken in this house by those of us who criticized some of the decisions of the board of transport commissioners, and also vindicates the attitude of the seven provinces which objected to those decisions and asked for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry.
With some opinions in the report I find myself in disagreement, but they are minor considerations compared with the major recommendations of the report. I noted with a good deal of interest that the commission referred to the request which has been made from various quarters in the country for legislation which would prevent a recurrence of the regrettable dispute and the regrettable strike which occurred last summer. I noted with considerable interest that the royal commission recommended that no special legislation should be passed for the handling of railway disputes and the prevention of strikes or lockouts. It went on to

Supply-Transport
say that legislation of that kind would be highly provocative and in practice ineffective -in other words, that we should continue the traditional method enjoyed by labour and management through the years, namely, collective bargaining.
Some of us who took that view last year were subjected to considerable criticism here and there across the country. Indeed, those of us who had the temerity to say that, after the long months of negotiation which ended in failure to achieve a settlement, the railway unions were justified in the regrettable action they then took, can find, I think, both in the report of the royal commission and in the report of the special commissioner or arbitrator who dealt with that railway dispute, some consolation for the, in some respects, abusive remarks directed toward us last August and September.
So as to link the matter up, I wish to place on record a paragraph of some significance in Mr. Justice Kellock's report:
By September 1, 1950, the wage rate-cost ot living relationship of the railway worker had deteriorated from the 1948 level to such an extent that 10 2 cents per hour was then required to restore that relationship.
In other words the seven cents asked for- by the railway unions-was already exceeded by 3-2 cents.
And this margin, it would appear, will likely continue to be augmented.
That margin of course has continued to be augmented. It is indeed regrettable that strikes have to occur; but at the same time, when we find the justification outlined in the report of the arbitrator in the railway dispute, it can readily be seen why such action becomes necessary. I am glad to note the royal commission states that we should continue to rely upon the traditional methods of collective bargaining and not upon legislation referring particularly to employees of such public services as the railway.
I agree with the commission that it is unfortunate that railway freight rates for quite a number of years now have been a matter of public controversy, and unless action is taken, in some respects along the lines suggested in the report of the royal commission, we shall continue for a long time to come to have these regrettable discussions and disputes, and these feelings of justifiable dissatisfaction in various parts of the country. There will also be the feeling, as there has been in that part of Canada which has been my home for a good many years, including the constituency I represent, that there has been both unjust treatment and unjust discrimination against large sections of the country, both the far east and the far west.

In justification of the criticism we have made in the house from time to time I would point out that the royal commission indulges in some criticism of the board's decisions since world war II. Those are decisions we have criticized adversely and at times severely in the house. The report says:
The board seems to have treated the application purely from the revenue point of view and without considering the ability of different commodities to bear the increase.
I think that has very largely been the bone of contention. Incidentally it contrasts the attitude of our board of transport commissioners with that of the interstate commerce commission in the United States, pointing out that the American board, which has similar functions, did take into consideration some factors other than purely revenue factors, and that in their decisions there had been numerous exemptions from the horizontal increase right across the board about which we have complained in this country.
Quite properly in this connection the royal commission points out that special consideration must be given, both by the parliament of Canada and by any authority set up by parliament, to the long haul traffic, and particularly to the traffic in primary commodities. We have long argued in the house that the railways should not be considered purely from the point of view of revenue-producing institutions or organizations. The Canadian Pacific railway in particular was built to cement confederation. Indeed, one of the fundamental factors in the confederation agreement, particularly with British Columbia, was that a railway would be built to unite the far western province of British Columbia with the central and eastern provinces of the new Canada. It was on that consideration that British Columbia entered confederation. In other words, the railway was the bond of steel that joined the country together, considered not from a revenue-producing or economic standpoint only, but also as a political factor in the uniting of this great country we now know as Canada.
One can understand that the railways themselves are loath to approach the problem from the point of view I have just indicated. The royal commissioners pointed out -and I say the House of Commons should see that the suggestion is carried out-that the board of transport commissioners must approach the problem from what, for the want of a better term, I shall describe as the political point of view, or the point of view of the political welfare of the entire Dominion of Canada.
Then in connection with rate structure they say, as we have said in the house on

many occasions, that we must have some equalization of treatment in the matter of freight rates. Indeed, it would appear that from the evidence given before the royal commission they came to the conclusion that that point of view was now generally accepted in all parts of Canada. In other words they felt that our friends in eastern Canada now recognize, with the rest of us, that these injustices and discriminations must be removed, and that there must be more equality in the rate structure of our country than we have had up to the present time. Therefore I am much in agreement with that part of the report. I think the recommendation as to the treatment of rates across the country is based on sound reasoning.
The commission point out that British Columbia in some respects enjoys a competitive rate because of the water haul by the Panama canal, but that certain cities in western Canada, particularly Edmonton and Calgary, have been discriminated against. They show that the rate on canned goods from eastern Canada to Vancouver is $1.40 per hundred pounds, because of the competition, as compared with a rate of $2.65 to Calgary or Edmonton. They recommend that a new system of rating should be adopted which would bring the rate to the Alberta cities down to $1.87 per hundred pounds. They recommend that the rates to intermediate points between the east and British Columbia should never be more than one-third greater than the transcontinental rates to or from the Pacific coast. It seems to me that that is one of the wisest and fairest recommendations in this report.


Mr. Low:: At least it is closer to reason.


Major James William Coldwell: It is getting closer to what we should have in the way of a rate structure. It does tend to remove at least some of the injustices that are found in the present rate structure. What we need is a rate structure that will treat all citizens of Canada, wherever they may live, as justly as it is possible to do under prevailing conditions.
I am not going into a discussion of competitive rates generally, or the proposals in the report of the commission in regard to them. I have no doubt that soon or later the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier)-at least I hope so-will be bringing down legislation to implement some of the good recommendations in this report.
I notice that the commission does not recommend the public ownership of the Canadian Pacific railway. Some time ago we urged in this house that public ownership of the Canadian Pacific railway should be considi-
Supply-Transport
ered. During the war many of the securities issued by the Canadian Pacific, and indeed many of its shares, were held in the United Kingdom. Under wartime legislation in Great Britain those securities and shares were picked up by the government and marketed in order to get dollar exchange.
We were most anxious, as we are still, that the Canadian Pacific railway shall not pass into the control of the nationals of even the friendliest of foreign countries. That kind of thing has been going on. I still think that when we had the opportunity we would have been wise to ensure to the Canadian people the ownership of this great transportation facility. However, that was not done, and the report of the royal commission does not recommend that it should be done now. Indeed, it rejected the plea that it should be done.
May I just note in passing that the plea for the public ownership of the Canadian Pacific railway came from Prince Edward Island1. That province produced some strong arguments as to why this railway should be publicly owned. My own province of Saskatchewan did not make a representation in the same sense as the Liberal government of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Brooks:: Prince Edward Island is the only province through which the Canadian Pacific does not run.


Major James William Coldwell: That is right. While I have been criticized for saying it, I repeat that if and1 when this railway does come under the ownership of the people of Canada, as I believe it will ultimately, personally I would not be in favour of creating a single authority for the operation and amalgamation of the two great railroad systems. I believe that they should be competing in giving service with one another, just as it has been found advisable in the United Kingdom, and in some other countries where industries of the same type are publicly owned, to have separate management and administration, in order that one unit of the industry in one area may become a yardstick for another unit of the same industry in another area. I wanted to refer to that because it is something I have talked about in this house for a very long time.
The commission recommends an amendment to the Railway Act to empower the board and direct it to maintain a revised statistical procedure so designed as to provide the requisite data for the purposes of its duties. During the course of the presentations by the various provinces to the board of transport commissioners I was told that there was a sad lack of statistical material available, and

Supply-Transport
that they had neither the staff nor the facilities to do the job they were expected to do under the legislation. I was told that by counsel who appeared before the commission, and particularly by some of the expert accountants who were engaged in the presentation of the pleas of the various provinces before the board of transport commissioners. I notice that the royal commission directs the attention of the house and the minister to the necessity of an amendment to the Railway Act to empower and direct the board to have the facilities available to enable them to do the kind of statistical job that is necessary in connection with problems of this kind.
It is noteworthy that two of the recommendations in the report are of great interest to two particular parts of Canada, because there is legislation dealing with both of them. No one wishes to disturb the maritime freight rates structure; and by the same token I was pleased indeed to see, in spite of representations by the railways, that the royal commission recommends no interference with the Crowsnest pass rates. We in western Canada regard the Crowsnest pass agreement as one of the agreements vital to the economic welfare of our part of Canada and indeed all Canada. We feel that we have paid in full for the right which is embedded in that agreement and in the validating legislation of this House of Commons. Some of us can remember very distinctly the attempts that were made after world war I to set aside the Crowsnest pass agreement. We remember the long struggle, lasting until 1925, to prevent any interference with that agreement; and we regretted and still regret that we lost some advantages when the legislation was amended, I think in 1925 or thereabouts. But as it remains today it is of such vital importance to western Canada that I am delighted indeed to see that the royal commission recommended that the Crowsnest pass agreement should remain under the control of parliament and not be turned back to the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners, as the railways requested should be done.
I was also pleased to see that the royal commission took up the argument which is sometimes advanced that these Crowsnest rates inflict some burden upon the rest of Canada. The commission did not substantiate that contention. Indeed they pointed out that other parts of the country enjoyed certain advantages which quite offset any advantages given under the Crowsnest agreement. Consequently they recommended that these rates should not be made to bear any part of general freight rate increases. As I say, we are pleased indeed that the royal commission

confirmed the point of view many hon. members from western Canada, regardless of political affiliation, have advanced1 in this house from time to time.
I think one of the most interesting sections in the report is that which deals with the unproductive haul across northern and1 western Ontario, between Sudbury and Fort William. In that connection they have a proposal which I think this house would be well advised to consider very carefully, because it is the most constructive proposal I have seen along these lines during the years I have been in parliament or since this matter has been under discussion. They propose that this unproductive area from Sudbury to Fort William be considered on exactly the same basis as the canal system of Canada, which joins the great lakes and is the responsibility of all Canada. They propose that this long haul should be considered in exactly the same light, and that the annual maintenance costs-they make it clear that they are not talking about the operating costs-of that part of our railway system should be borne entirely by the federal government. They estimate that this would relieve the freight rate structure to the extent of something like $7 million annually, and they anticipate that this would be an effective measure of relief in the case of westbound traffic passing over this area which they call the bridge between east and west. I think that proposition would be fair to the railways and beneficial to all Canada. I believe it should be carefully considered and, if that consideration is favourable, approved by this house.
As I said before the report does not recommend any other legislation regarding railway disputes, strikes, lockouts, and so on. Another part of the report which I think should be carefully considered deals with the methods suggested for meeting the growing trucking competition. As a matter of fact I think everyone realizes that the truck is here to stay, and that it can perform a very useful function within our transportation system. While local trucking is under provincial control, there is no doubt that the house and the government, through legislation, cam exercise some control over interprovincial and international trucking. What seems to be happening is that am many instances the lighter, more profitable traffic that might have been hauled by the railways has been picked up by the trucking and bus companies. As a result the railways have been denied a large and profitable traffic they might otherwise have had. If this continues without consideration and without perhaps some supervision, more and more we are going to find the railways left with coal, lumber, wheat and other heavy

commodities, with the lighter and more profitable traffic handled1 almost exclusively by trucks and busses. I am not suggesting by any means the elimination of the trucking industry. As I said, I believe it performs a very useful function within our transportation system. I am suggesting, however, that the time has come when the minister and this house should consider the best ways and means of treating the trucking industry fairly and at the same time regulating it so it will be supplementary or complementary, whichever expression you like better, to the railway transportation system which must always be, within foreseeable time, the basic transportation system of this country, just as the fathers of confederation regarded it when confederation was achieved.
There are many other important matters dealt with in the report. I notice that the commission recommends the establishment of one central board to supervise our entire transportation system instead of the board of transport commissioners, the air transport board, and the Canadian maritime commission. That is one board instead of three. They say such a board would be able to undertake the kind of co-ordinated control that in these days is essential to the efficiency and welfare of the various groups and interests engaged1 in transportation, and for the protection of the public of Canada.
There is not a great deal more that I wish to say at this point. I do think that the minister will find he has a considerable amount of support in this house for the main recommendations made by the royal commission. If I may speak personally, I believe that the time has arrived when the recommendation for a national transportation commission, dealing with all forms of transportation which could come properly within the jurisdiction of such a commission, should be carefully considered by the minister and by the government. As the minister knows, I have held that view for a long time. The more I study the railway problem in Canada, the more I have been convinced that if we are going to have the kind of rate structure that will be satisfactory to all Canada, even if we have these changes that are recommended by the royal commission, if we are going to maintain our basic transportation system, then we have to view the transportation problem not from the railways' standpoint, not from the viewpoint of the trucking industry or the aeroplanes or the ships or whatever you have, but from the point of view of the entire industry and the economic effect of that industry on the welfare of Canada. When I say "welfare of Canada", we have now of course to consider also the interests of Newfoundland, as well as the 80709-124
Supply-Transport
interests of the nine provinces who were interested in this problem when it came before the house so acutely two or three years ago.
I want to say again that I believe the royal commission did ia splendid job for Canada. The commission members are to be congratulated. The main recommendations of the report I believe are of such a nature that this house would be well advised to give early consideration to them, and to enacting legislation to bring into effect, as soon as we can, those that we feel are in the interests of Canada.


Mr. Larson:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Frederick Hugo Larson: Would the hon. member care to tell the house exactly how he would propose to manage the railroads, if both railroads were owned by the federal government? Would he cut out duplicate services?


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, you will note that in discussing this several years ago I said that ownership of the Canadian Pacific might come to us if we acquired its securities then held in the United Kingdom instead of allowing them to pass into the hands of citizens of the United States, and that then we would have to consider that problem. I say I believe the day will yet come when the railways will be nationally owned. Economic circumstances will ultimately force that on the people of Canada, because sooner or later the people of Canada will decide that they should not subsidize a private railway company.
I said that when that is done I personally would not be in favour, as I see it now at least, of setting up one great corporation to operate the railways as one great system. The recommendation of the commission is to set up a controlling body over these various phases of transportation. I would say that, at least until that has been tried, no further step might be necessary.
The hon. member asked me how one would administer the two railways. I would say, keep each under an administration somewhat similar to the administration you have today, that is separate administrations answerable, as is the Canadian National, for their operations to a committee of parliament. I have forgotten the last question I was asked.


Frederick Hugo Larson: If the two railways were
united it would appear that, in the interests of economy, all duplicate services should be discontinued.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not suggest the uniting of the two railways. As a matter of fact,

Supply-Transport
when you speak about duplication of service, let us bear in mind that the parliament of Canada granted charters to these railroads to build where they are today. Along these routes that were granted, the people built towns and villages. I believe that in any consideration of the railway problem the interests of these towns and villages must be of primary consideration to us. To take up lines through certain territories because they are duplicated would create hardship on many hundreds of people. This parliament or provincial legislatures allowed the railways to go there, the duplication occurred, and this encouraged the building of towns and villages along those routes. We must not penalize the people who settled those parts of the country in good faith.


Mr. Johnston:: I should like to say a few words on this report, because in the past I have had something to say about transportation. I believe it can be fairly said that the report has covered a large field, and that the members of the commission have done an excellent job. They have spent a good deal of time on it, I think in all about two years. In general the recommendations which the commission have made should commend themselves not only to the members of the house but to the people of Canada as well.
There are some exceptions that I would take to that, however. One of the good things which the report contains, one of the outstanding things, is the recommendation that the government subsidize the bridge between eastern and western Canada. I believe that is designated as the part lying north of the great lakes. We often refer to it as no man's land. I do not see how that problem could be dealt with in any different manner than that recommended by the commission. There is a large area of about four hundred miles between Sudbury and Fort William in which little production is taking place. There has been some improvement in that area due to the building of industries, such as the paper industry, and that will alleviate the distress to some extent. But certainly some assistance must be given to the railways if that large area is not to be considered a hindrance to the progress of western Canada. I believe we can all agree that that is a good recommendation.
The report refers to the amalgamation of the railways, to which the hon. member who preceded me has made some reference. I believe there are not many people in Canada who would support the amalgamation of the railways. The commission definitely recommends against that. My own view is that, while the report says there is not a monopoly existing between the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways, there is what

they term a duopoly. I looked for that word in the dictionary, but I could not find it. The solicitors for the railways gave a definition of it, and it is so close to monopoly there is not much room for argument. I believe the condition which exists with regard to those two railways is quite close enough without any further amalgamation. The commission recommended that the Crowsnest pass rates remain the same and for a good reason, I think, namely that the Crowsnest pass agreement was part of the terms of union of the provinces of Canada. That is necessary in order to maintain that long haul for grain. Incidentally, that reference was made at page 274, where the commission states that it was in the terms of union. It is not necessary to read the citation, but it may be found at page 274.
Then the commissioners make reference to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which reference is also to be found at page 274, and recommended that it be left as it is. With that recommendation I think we all agree. Then on the same page they make reference to the canal system as follows:
The construction in central Canada of an extensive canal system which became toll free, built at a cost of about $328 million and maintained at government expense.
I think the canal system is necessary to Canada and I am not in disagreement with the report when it suggests that that system be continued. That canal system has been a great advantage to central Canada and I should like to see more rapid progress made with regard to the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway in order to permit ocean-going vessels to go right up to the head of the lakes. That would be a tremendous improvement and advantage having regard to long freight hauls to various parts of this country. But it must not be forgotten that the fact that there was in this country a canal system maintained at the expense of the federal government-and that means maintained at the expense of all of Canada- certainly assisted in the development of central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, in maintaining low rates of transportation.
I have made some reference to that matter at this moment because I want to deal with it at greater length a little later on. I was also interested in and agreed with the recommendation in the report that labour disputes should not be interfered with but that they should be handled under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. I think that is something which should continue to operate as it has in the past. Generally speaking, I think that the Industrial

Relations and Disputes Investigation Act has functioned satisfactorily.
I want to turn my attention now to the chapter which deals with trucking transportation. With some aspects of this report I do not agree, and I think the minister is quite well aware of that fact. I do not agree with them for obvious reasons. While the commission's report itself does not suggest, in so many words, that the federal government take over the control of trucking transportation in Canada, it does that by inference. The trucking industry in this country seems, to me at least, to be of paramount importance.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must disagree with the interpretation placed upon the recommendation of the commission. The commission recommends no such thing by inference as the taking over of the trucking industry.


Charles Edward Johnston: It suggests that the federal government make a further and more extensive investigation into transportation by truck as between provinces. Those are not exactly the words used, but they are so close to it that there is no difference in the meaning at least.


Lionel Chevrier: All the commission does is to recommend the amendment of the Railway Act so as t.o cover regulation of international and interprovincial trucking.


Charles Edward Johnston: If I can just lay my hands on the section here, I will read it to the minister. I will find it a little later on. I cannot just lay my hand on it at the moment. I remember quite well that it was the last sentence of one of the paragraphs. I will run across it in just a moment. I will bring it to the minister's attention later on. As he has said, they do not recommend specifically that the federal government take over control of trucking transport but in my view they were coming fairly close to it, by inference anyway.
The canal system in central Canada has the same effect as the trucking industry would have in western Canada. The commission is explicit about that. They say that because of the canal system in central Canada and the trucking system in that same part of the dominion, there have been much lower traffic rates than there would have been otherwise. They say, in fact, that while the highways are under provincial jurisdiction, trucking transportation has an international effect. At page 275 they have this to say: Under Canada's constitution, control over highway traffic is, in the main, vested in the legislatures of the provinces. The provincial governments have expended large sums of money on road construction
Supply-Transport
and gradually the country is being provided with a network of good roads. Now the federal government is co-operating with the provincial governments in the construction of the "trans-Canada highway" which will link the provinces of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific with a suitable route for motor transport.
It is true, as the report indicates there, that the provincial governments have spent large sums of money on the construction of proper and decent highways. But that result has come about only in the last few years, and I am going to venture this statement: Had it not been for the financial and the industrial improvement in the province of Alberta, that province would never have developed the remarkable system of highways that it now has and which it is continuing: to develop. Because of the provincial government's better standing financially and industrially, we are now beginning to have a greater truck system there, and that is competing materially with railway transportation. That is one of the reasons why today the railway companies and the other vested interests, who are appealing strongly to the government to put transportation under federal control, are greatly concerned because of this competition in trucking. It is remarkable to note in the report that it has been owing largely to the centralization of trucking in central Canada and the competition from the canal rates that Ontario and Quebec have been able to improve their industrial and financial standing to the detriment of the other parts of the country. It is not much wonder, Mr. Chairman, when you read this report over carefully, why the railways and some of the large vested interests of this country have been so bitterly opposed to the free competition of truck transportation. At page 277 of the report they have this to say:
Special mention was made of the desirability of bringing trucks within the same control and regulation as the railways. And here a great obstacle lies in the way. By far the largest part of truck traffic is intra-provincial, and most of this intraprovincial traffic consists of private trucking, that is trucking done by individuals and commercial firms in the handling of their own articles of merchandise. Only a small percentage is trucking for hire. All this intra-provincial truck traffic, both private and for hire, is beyond the jurisdiction of parliament, and this fact presents a barrier to coordination and integration of highway and railway services.
There is one point, Mr. Chairman, where, by reference, the thought is left for the trucking industry to be put under federal control. The minister may not agree with it, but the commission points out very carefully that intra-provincial trucking, that is trucking within the provincial boundaries, comes within the jurisdiction of the provinces without question. But they point out

Supply-Transport
that when it comes to interprovincial trucking there is going to toe difficulty to have co-ordination, and they recommend a one board commission to handle all this transportation.
I said a moment ago that the situation in Ontario and Quebec, because of the trucking competition and the canal competition with the railways, has led to prosperity in those central provinces. Therefore the railways and certain vested interests in this country have used a great deal of pressure to bring the trucking transportation under the board of transport commissioners. If we turn to page 286 of the report we find that Dr. Angus gives some views on it. At the bottom of the page in section 10 he says:
A rate structure, once established, is an important factor in determining the economic location of industry and any change in an established structure is likely in the long run to affect the location of industry by making some enterprises vulnerable to competition.
That is exactly what happened in Ontario and Quebec. Because they had this competition with the rate structure it resulted in a great deal of prosperity for that section of the country. We are not for one moment objecting to prosperity in Ontario and Quebec, tout I am pointing out that that was the fact, and the very fact that the board of transport commissioners and the railways worked together held back the progress of western Canada and the maritimes. And they did it knowingly. Let us not misunderstand that. They did it knowingly, and yet throughout these years the people of the maritimes and the people of the western provinces have appealed in this house and outside to get some fair rate structure established across this country, but to no avail. This report is the first evidence we have ever had of any attempt to be fair in the rates as between eastern and western Canada. The report goes on:
There are, therefore, vested interests-
Notice this. It bears out exactly what I have said in this house for the last two or three years on this question:
There are, therefore, vested interests opposed to any substantial change and insistent that, as a matter of national policy, it should be avoided or neutralized.
They go on:
At the present time a substantial change is taking place in the Canadian rate structure. As in other countries, trucks (whether operating as carriers for hire or owned by shippers) have deprived the railways of much of the revenue which they had previously derived from the carriage of commodities of relatively high value for relatively short distances. The loss in revenue has to be made good from traffic which is not vulnerable to truck competition and, therefore, principally from the carriage of relatively low valued commodities for relatively

long distances. In Canada, more perhaps than elsewhere, the result has been to impose a serious burden on the economies of outlying regions.
There is no doubt in the suggestions of Dr. Angus that the policy which has been laid down by the board of transport commissioners has resulted in rank discrimination against the western provinces particularly as to the advantage of industrial expansion and finances as well. It was rather noticeable to the commissioners that neither Ontario nor Quebec presented a case before the commission. That is understandable. Whether they did so by intent or not, I am not prepared to say, but they were certainly conspicuous by their absence. They already enjoyed the lowest freight rates of anywhere in this country, and only those who are most concerned and who have been deprived of the benefits of those low rates presented their views before the commission.
Let me again draw your attention to page 296 of the report. They put it in a very concise form here, and I think it should be put on the record:
The eloquent silence of Ontario and Quebec in rate cases and in the hearings of this commission points to the effectiveness of truck and water competition in keeping down rates in the St. Lawrence region.
That is very definite. I continue:
More extensive and better highways bring an increase in the density of traffic, greater diversification of industry, lower interest rates on capital . . .
Let me draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact that that is a very important consideration in the development of industry, which has always been lacking in the western provinces particularly, and I presume in the maritime provinces as well. I continue:
More extensive and better highways bring an increase in the density of traffic, greater diversification of industry, lower interest rates on capital, and even greater extension and improvement of highways. Ability to escape from the full impact of increases in railway rates accentuates the burden of these increases on other regions and compels these regions to concentrate on highway construction as a means of escaping from the burden of higher short haul rates and long haul rates.
That is one of the conditions that have compelled those outlying regions to go in for greater development of hard-surfaced highways. They did not do it for the fun of it. That is a sure thing. Now that we are getting to the point of getting some decent highways-we hope to get a trans-Canada highway soon-the railways and other vested interests are becoming somewhat concerned about who is to control the transportation on those highways. Mind you, these highways are being built by the provinces, and not by any grant of the dominion government, with

the exception of the trans-Canada highway. The commissioners go on in the same paragraph:
Inability to escape the increased burden of higher rates on long haul rail traffic limits the financial strength and restricts the diversification of industry in these regions.
The effectiveness of truck competition in the St. Lawrence region by weakening the financial resources of other regions, limits their possibility of escape from the burden of higher railway rates by means of road construction and motor vehicles.
If the railways can control freight rates through the board of transport commissioners by bringing trucks under the control of the board, then Ontario and Quebec can continue to dominate Canada's field of industry and finance. They will continue to use the maritimes and the prairie provinces as a market for their manufactured goods.
I think that statement is fully borne out by what this report says. So it is not fair and it is not honest and it is not according to facts for anyone to say that there has been no discrimination between east and west. Probably I should make it more definite and say between central Canada, that is Ontario and Quebec, and the western part of Canada. I am more mindful of the western provinces because it is that part from which I come. However, those from the maritime provinces can get up and make their views known. I do not think we would differ much from them because they are in exactly the same industrial and financial position as we are. We have contributed substantially to the advancement of central Canada; it is now time they did a little' contributing toward other parts of Canada.
When I refer to the construction of the trans-Canada highway may I say that I am glad to see it progressing. I have been endeavouring to keep up with the times in the development of that highway, and I can say that the western provinces are developing their share just as quickly as their finances will permit them to do so. I have seen very little development in Ontario in the region between Sault Ste. Marie and Fort William. It is true that there is a good deal of development between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, and from here to those points. In these regions good roads are being constructed; I was over them no later than last fall.
However, it does not make any difference how good the road is to Sault Ste. Marie; if the link between that point and Fort William is missing, what good is it? Anyone who has travelled over the Canadian Pacific Railway has noted, upon looking out of the window, that sections of well-graded gravel road ten to fifteen miles in length have been constructed, but there has been nothing done to
Supply-Transport
join these sections. This was a terrific waste of money. Do not tell me that was by accident, because I know it was not. That was done years ago to prevent the construction of the trans-Canada highway. Provinces do not build those sections of road at an expense of from $75,000 to $100,000 a mile, and then leave them standing; of course they do not- unless they have very good reasons for doing so.
The provinces concerned are going to have to put up a fight in this field. Some of them are already doing so. I know of only one province that stated before the commission they were prepared to turn the control of trucking over to the federal board, and that was Saskatchewan. I believe they went so far as to say that they would turn over to federal control their internal trucking along the main line. Alberta does not take the same view, nor did any of the other provinces. They can see clearly what has been holding back the progress of those provinces.
Indeed, at page 297 of the report we find this:
The province of Alberta has intimated that it will not give licences for trucks controlled by the railway.
I have come to that part which a while back I indicated to the minister I would read. It is found in the latter part of the second paragraph on page 297, where it says:
Higher interprovincial rates are justified in part by necessity for example in purchasing double licence plates but they present obstacles to trade between provinces and favour intraprovincial trade.
And this is the sentence to which I referred:
It is of concern to the federal government to institute machinery which will collect full information on the extent of interprovincial trucking.
I said by inference that meant they were more or less favouring further investigation into this problem with the hope probably that it would be taken under federal control and co-ordinated under this one board.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member
permit me? He is reading from the memorandum on transportation by one of the commissioners.


Charles Edward Johnston: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: I, in my interruption a
moment ago, was dealing with the recommendations in the report. That, I suggest is the only matter with which we can be concerned, namely what the commissioners recommended. That is in the first part of the report. The hon. member is reading from observations, and they can be taken only as such.

Supply-Transport


Charles Edward Johnston: The other quotation I read
was from the recommendations of the commission itself.


Lionel Chevrier: But it did not support your view.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a matter of interpretation. I think I said a moment ago that I was referring to the submissions of Dr. H. F. Angus and Dr. H. A. Innis. This is from Dr. Innis' submission. One of my colleagues has just asked me to ask the minister if he is in favour of it. I do not think the minister need answer that because he has made it clear on other occasions that he is definitely in favour of having trucking brought under federal control.
I think I should put on record the fact that there are vested interests involved. These vested interests of which I was speaking are referred to at page 278 of the report and they include the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Ship-by-Rail Association, the Dominion Joint Legislative Committee of the Railway Transportation Brotherhood, and the Canadian Congress of Labour. But the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and the Canadian Automotive Transportation Association are opposed to federal control. I should have added the name of the minister to the list of financial interests who were concerned, because he would appear to fall in the same category.
As will be seen, the provinces must meet quite an array of artillery, when we find the minister himself in agreement with the policy of placing trucking under the board of transport commissioners. I certainly hope however that the minister will change his view, and I would suggest that the words of Dr. Angus and Dr. Innis, two members of the commission, should have some influence with the government when deciding policy. I believe when the government examines the report carefully and the remarks made by these two gentlemen, aside from those of the chairman, Mr. Turgeon, it will come to the conclusion that it would not be in the interests of Canada to place truck transportation under the board of transport commissioners.
At -the present time we have been operating under what one of the solicitors for the railways said was not a monopoly but a duopoly. If we put through this other thing we will have a triopoly. I do not know how many more "opolies" we will get as a result. But, as one member suggests, we certainly will have a monopoly. As far as transportation rates are concerned, it will be more than that, we will have a dictatorship.
If you have all these transportation systems under the one board it is safe to say that

while the board will not be made up of the same personnel as the present board it will be quite similar and we will have similar results. Those results -have not been good. They have not been for the benefit of Canada. There should not be a complete monopoly of the transportation systems of this country under any one board.
If the government believes in free enterprise, as it says it does, then we should have free enterprise and free competition.


Mr. Byrne:: Would you let the railways set their own rates?


Charles Edward Johnston: The railways have been setting their own rates, do not make any mistake about that. You have only to refer to the last increases which they asked for and got. The government had something to do with that. That is -the objection to having all these transportation systems under the control of one board. Free competition and free enterprise will have no chance to operate. Therefore I am against the suggestion which I think is made in the report of having transportation by truck under the control of any board or commission.


Mr. Darroch:: Mr. Chairman, chapter 5 of the report deals with matters which are of national or local concern, and for a few minutes I should like to deal with a matter of local concern to my constituents. On pages 135 and 136 reference is made to the segregation of passenger and freight revenues and expenses. It was suggested to the commission that any deficit in passenger rates should not be charged to freight rates, but at page 137 of the report the commission recommends:
The freight and passenger services are essential and if the passenger fares cannot be raised to produce sufficient revenue to enable the passenger traffic to pay its own way the freight traffic must bear the burden. The two services are so interrelated that segregation is not practical.
After reading -this conclusion by the commission, we in our section of Ontario are rather perplexed. During the last couple of months the management of Canadian National Railways have been interviewing the heads of municipalities and suggesting that certain passenger services which are now in effect in that section of Ontario should- be discontinued. They propose taking off two passenger trains that run from the divisional -point at Palmerston in my riding to Kincardine and to Southampton. In other words, they propose taking off four trains a day on each of those lines.
It has been proposed to the municipalities that in substitution they will inaugurate three distinct services which will be wholly dependent on gas, rubber and road conditions. They propose to carry express and mail by trucks,

and passengers by busses. I feel that those who are making those recommendations overlook a condition peculiar to our section of the country, that is the road conditions which are created by our weather. As I say, these three services will be dependent upon gas and rubber, which commodities may be in short supply before too long, although we hope that will not be so.
However, the greatest obstacle is the road conditions. I know the type of road condition that is created by the weather in that part of the country because I have lived there all my life. I cannot see how they will be able to keep traffic moving under the conditions which we have at times. I noticed an article in the newspapers yesterday under the dateline Palmerston, April 10, which reads:
Road conditions on local roads have bogged down part of North Wellington district high school buses, and have stalled traffic over a Wellington county-road used as a short cut to Harriston from Palmerston.
That is not an isolated instance because the same condition pertains between Palmerston and Southampton, and even more so between Palmerston and Kincardine. The greatest part of the road that it is proposed to use is a county road. I am quite satisfied that other counties are as much concerned with road costs as is the county of Wellington. At the January session of our county council they decided to set aside one mill for road and bridge improvement, but I notice that in the April session last week they decided that in view of heavy taxation they would forgo that charge and this year they will not be spending that mill. Other counties are finding the burden of keeping up county roads just as heavy as the county in which this proposed service will operate. We are to have four express trucks, four mail trucks and four busses using these county roads.
The railroad company does not propose to stop its freight service. In other words, it will still use these two lines for freight and therefore the roadbeds will have to be kept up. I cannot understand why this additional burden should be passed on to the municipalities when the railroad roadbeds are still to remain. That is something that the people in this part of the province find it hard to understand.
Then there is the employment situation which will result if this proposed change takes place. Palmerston is a divisional point and it has a substantial wartime housing project. Ninety per cent of the houses are occupied by veterans who are employed by Canadian National Railways. If the proposed change goes into effect these men will have to change their place of residence-I
Supply-Transport
do not say they will be out of work because no doubt the railroad can give them employment elsewhere-they will have to move to other divisional points in order to continue working. That means that these men will lose their equity in their houses and the municipality of Palmerston will be faced with the necessity of carrying on where they have left off.
This town has been built around the railroad and as there is no other industry this will mean, quite a serious burden. I do not think anyone will -argue that the railroads in that section of the country have not suffered a loss of considerable passenger traffic. One reason for this is the fact that many people own their own automobiles, but quite a substantial group of people in these communities use a bus line that is operating there. This service is rather uncertain and cannot be considered to be completely dependable by any stretch of the imagination. They run one bus up and one bus down per day on each of the roads I have mentioned.
In his closing remarks the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred to the fact that many communities- had been built up on the promise of railroad service. I am thinking of a conversation I had last Saturday with an elderly gentleman in my village. We were not talking about the railway; he just happened to come along and speak to me. He told me that if he lived until May 29 he would be 80 years old, the same age, he said, as the railway track. That just shows how long that service has been in operation.
I think quite a substantial amount of this passenger traffic could be regained by the railways if the management and labour would sit down and talk over the matter. From my own observations in and around Palmerston and other places -affected I believe that if the service were made more attractive, perhaps by using smaller units of some kind, we could continue to carry on almost as in the past. With the weather we have in that part of the country I do not see how trucks and busses can hope to give the kind of service that has been given by the railways; I do not think it can- be done. If I may say so, I believe in the past railways have been rather delinquent in not keeping up with the times. Passing through the villages, towns and cities in our part of the country you will find that one of the most unattractive buildings in- the community will be the local railway station. The bus companies dress up their depots. At the moment I am thinking of the two cities in western Ontario with which I am most familiar, Guelph and Kitchener. The bus depots there

Supply-Transport
are bright buildings with individual chairs, cheerful surroundings and lunch counters. If you go into the Canadian National depots in those cities, however, you find them to be dark, dingy places with hard benches and nothing else. I am sure that if the service were made more attractive more people would use the railways.
Then I believe more advertising should be done. On the afternoon of Easter Sunday I noticed a train running on our line, that is the Southampton line. The track runs right past our farm, and I could see how many people were on the train, I did not know there was going to be a train that afternoon, and I do not think ten people in the village, other than those connected with the railway, knew a train was going to be operated. I was in the village that evening and several people said that if they had known a train would be operating they would have been glad to use it.
So I believe it should be suggested to the Canadian National that they do not take this matter to the board of transport commissioners for approval but that the whole matter be reviewed with the idea of improving the present system. I am quite sure it can be done. I feel that the people of this section of the country, which is one of the most prosperous rural districts in Canada, have a right to expect at least a continuation of the present service, if not an improvement in it, from a government owned and operated transportation system.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the hon. member will expect me to comment on the statement he has just made concerning the proposed withdrawal of certain trains on the Palmerston-Kincardine line and perhaps another line which he mentioned. The hon. member has brought up a matter which of necessity concerns the railways from time to time; namely, the unprofitable operation of certain lines. That is evidently what is happening in the area to which the hon. member refers. I am not nearly as familiar with the circumstances as he is, but it may be that the delinquency he charges on the part of the railways arises from the fact that the people are not using the railways. I am reminded of a delegation that came to see me some years ago, not long after I took over responsibility for this department, to protest the withdrawal of certain trains. Upon questioning them it was discovered they had travelled here by bus, not by train. If people in certain areas follow the practice of travelling by bus or in their own cars instead of using the trains, then certainly the people should not be surprised if sooner or later the railway com-

panies make application to the board of transport commissioners for the withdrawal of those trains.
The point here is that the operation is unprofitable because the public are not using the service. The only alternative is for the public to patronize the line. Neither the Canadian National nor any other company can, withdraw a service without the approval of the board of transport commissioners, and in this case I understand the application has not been made as yet. I think the Canadian National Railways have followed the obvious policy of attempting to meet the wishes of the people by discussing with certain public bodies and municipal corporations in the area a method of co-ordinating transportation by operating a portion of the service by rail and a portion by truck. Whether or not it is possible to meet the wishes of the people in the area I am unable to say; but I know those people on behalf of whom the hon. member speaks will have a perfect right to protest the withdrawal of these trains before a public board when the application is made, and give reasons why the service should not be curtailed or withdrawn. I can assure the hon. gentleman that these representations will be given careful consideration by the board.
The hon. member also suggested that the position be reviewed by the Canadian National Railways before the application is launched. I understand that review has been or is being made at the moment, and I am hoping that ways and means may be found to coordinate the services rather than withdraw them entirely.


Mr. Hatfield:: I do not agree with the
findings of the commission in regard to the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I do not think the maritime provinces get any advantage at all from that act, though the government is paying the railways some $9 million. The special rate on the Canadian National only applies as far as Diamond Junction or Levis. I do not know how far it goes on the Canadian Pacific. Can the minister say the point on the Canadian Pacific to which the 20 per cent applies?


Lionel Chevrier: The select territory is set out in the definition section of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, which I can get for the hon. member in a moment.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The select territory is defined in the act. As far as the Canadian National is concerned it is defined as being as far as Diamond Junction. The Canadian Pacific does not go into Diamond Junction. If you are shipping a car of potatoes from New Brunswick to Toronto the increased rates

beyond Diamond Junction take away all the benefits we receive from the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Freight rates have been increased so much that the maritime provinces have been almost put out of business. If east and west cannot ship their goods into central Canada, where the markets have been built up, what are the east and west to do?
The royal commission did not seem to do us much good. They turned down all the requests of the people who appeared before them. They turned down a request that the Maritime Freight Rates Act be extended to include movements to Toronto and Windsor. They turned down the request that the amount be increased to 30 per cent instead of 20 per cent. I do not believe the maritimes have had any advantage from that 20 per cent which was given in about 1926, I think it was, when the act was made effective. I believe that has all been taken away from us now, although the government pays about $9 million into the railways. I believe the railways build up the rates beyond Diamond Junction to cover the 20 per cent by which they have had to reduce the rate before Diamond Junction. I should like the minister to look into that situation, because I think the government is paying out money for nothing.
I should like to find out whether the maritime provinces are getting any advantage out of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. When I went into business we were shipping potatoes to Montreal for 17 cents per hundred. The rate is now 41 cents per hundred, with some other charges added. We have been talking about controls. The bag into which we put 75 pounds of potatoes has gone up 20 cents in the last six months. We used to pay 17 cents. You talk about increasing the cost of living. The increase in the freight rates and the increase in the cost of containers for the potatoes means that a bag of potatoes is costing about 50 cents more than it did a few years ago. The Minister of Trade and Commerce was trying to blame the producer for the increase, but it is not the producer; it is the freight rates. You cannot increase the freight rate and increase the cost of the containers while keeping the price to the consumer at the same level. I should like the minister to look into this situation.
At the time of confederation, when the Intercolonial railway was built, the maritime provinces were promised low freight rates into the markets in central Canada. No attention has been paid to that promise. At the time the Maritime Freight Rates Act was put into effect the rate on potatoes 80709-125
Supply-Transport
from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to Montreal was about 28 cents per hundred. It is now 41 or 42 cents per hundred. I believe the rate is built up beyond Diamond Junction. I do not know where Diamond Junction is, but I believe it is near Levis somewhere. I do not know where the point is on the Canadian Pacific, although they get the advantage of this 20 per cent too. I do not know whether it is St. Johns, Quebec, or Sherbrooke, because the Canadian Pacific does not follow the north shore as does the Canadian National. I should like to know from what point the Canadian Pacific is getting paid the 20 per cent. The government is paying the bill and we derive no advantage from it.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I might be allowed to reply to the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton at this stage. It is true that the main representations by the maritime provinces, with reference to the extension of the select territory and the increase in the subsidy, were not received with approval by the commission. But the representations were carefully studied by the commission, and it is also true that they were made by an important and large group of interests in the maritime provinces. The commission felt that it should not, for the reasons given in the report, extend the select territory, nor should it increase the 20 per cent to 30 per cent.
But the commission did accept one of the main requests of the maritime provinces, and that was in regard to the complaint that horizontal rate increases were burdensome on them, and had a detrimental effect upon the Maritime Freight Rates Act itself. After investigation of that complaint, the commission felt that there was a great deal to be said for it, and recommended to the board that hereafter it should not grant horizontal increases across the board, but that the increases should be granted in the manner in which they were granted originally by the board after it was established back in 1903.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What was the original plan, to increase in districts and areas?


Lionel Chevrier: That was one plan, and there was another plan which was given in detail in the report. Prior to 1914, I believe, the plan was one which increased the rates in western Canada less than in central Canada. I think there was, as well, a basis for a percentage increase in the eastern provinces.


Heber Harold Hatfield: The railways have not followed the terms of the act. They have not kept separate accounts up to Diamond Junction or any other place. They are supposed to keep those accounts.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I am telling my horn, friend now that one of the maim complaints of the maritime provinces was given effect to. Then, when he asks about a comparable point on the Canadian Pacific to Diamond Junction, if my hon. friend looks at section 4 of the act he will find it sets out a list of the preferred movements affecting the various railways.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said this afternoon, that the Turgeon commission did a particularly good job. I am more than pleased to be able to say that, because for many years the chairman of that board practised law in my own city of Prince Albert, and started bis political and judicial career there. I know the member for Rosthem recalls the days when Mr. Turgeon first came to Prince Albert, established himself there and started his record of public service which is continuing.


Heber Harold Hatfield: He was bom in the east.


John George Diefenbaker: As the member for
Victoria-Carleton says, he really had a good start having been born in New Brunswick.
I intend to make one or two observations about this report. First, I think that it does bear out many of the criticisms that have been made over the years, and in particular during the last two years, respecting horizontal increases in freight rates and the detrimental effect they have in so far as western Canada and the maritime provinces are concerned. I remember when, a little less than a year ago, the debate on this subject took place in this chamber. At that time I pointed out the injustice that was being done by reason of this horizontal increase in freight rates. It struck at western Canada-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The horizontal increases resulted in the unfair, discriminatory rates of 15 per cent, as they then were, finally being increased to 21-78 per cent. Certainly no one, in reading the report, can do otherwise than conclude that the only hope for the building up of a united Canada is in the removal of the discrimination that has been in effect in respect of freight rates.
I feel that, at the earliest possible date, the government should bring before parliament legislation that will implement many of the recommendations of the commission, in so far as they are generally acceptable to hon. members in all parts of the House of Commons. So often in the past, Mr. Chairman, when royal commissions have made their reports, those reports have been unused and have found their way into the archives. Having regard to the opinions expressed in this chamber last June by the minister, I trust that this is one report that will be implemented at the earliest opportunity, with a view to removing the existing discrimination and the

injustice to the maritimes and to the western provinces under which those areas have laboured over the years.
Some mention was made today of the extension of the authority of the board of transport commissioners. My friend the hon. member for, Bow River seemed to be under the impression that the report recommended not only that railway, steamship and air transport be placed under the board but trucking transportation as well. I do not read the report in that way. In fact, the majority opinion indicates that there was a full realization by the board that trucking was a matter, generally speaking, of provincial jurisdiction and that it could in no way be controlled by the federal authority.
I feel that it would be to the public interest to extend the power of the board of transport commissioners to cover not only railway transportation, but sea transportation and air transportation. There is no reason why the board, as it is at present constituted, should not be able to discharge those responsibilities. The chairman of the board, Mr. Justice Archibald-and a most distinguished judge he was-is today discharging his responsibility in a judicial and acceptable manner. I feel that the power of the board should be extended.
I mention this phase of the matter, and I hope I shall be pardoned for doing so. On more than one occasion I pointed out that, having regard to radio, it was unjust that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should act in a judicial capacity in matters of dispute as between the private stations and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In other words, the C.B.C. is in a position of being not only a competitor but also a judge in its own disputes. When and if the authority of the board of transport commissioners is extended to cover the three modes of transportation-railway, sea and air transportation-I think at the same time consideration should be given to giving it authority to supervise the question of jurisdiction and to settle disputes as between public and private authority in connection with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: What about international
and interprovincial trucking?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend mentions international and interprovincial trade.


Major James William Coldwell: Trucking.


John George Diefenbaker: I meant trucking. As
a matter of fact, the line between what is

international trade and what is interprovincial trade is difficult to draw. The courts have endeavoured to do it in the United States. The interstate commerce commission has found it almost impossible to arrive at a common basis upon which to determine what is, in fact, trucking within the state and what is interstate. For that reason I believe that to add to the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners the power to determine rights and to decree responsibility in reference to trucking would cause a great deal of legal argument and result in no final determination, having regard to the difficulties of differentiating between what is provincial and what is federal. Indeed, that consideration I think is pointed out on more than one occasion in the report. At page 277 we find these words:
Special mention was made of the desirability of bringing trucks within the same control and regulation as the railways. And here a great obstacle lies in the way. By far the largest part of truck traffic is intraprovincial, and most of this intraprovincial traffic consists of private trucking, that is trucking done by individuals and commercial firms in the handling of their own articles of merchandise. Only a small percentage is trucking for hire. All this intraprovincial truck traffic, both private and for hire is beyond the jurisdiction of parliament, and this fact presents a barrier to coordination and integration of highway and railway services.
In answer to my hon. friend, I point out that the opinion of the chairman of this commission is that of a renowned man of judicial experience; and he expressed, as did the commission, the gravest doubts as to the possibility of bringing trucking under the board. Then again at page 278, after reviewing the difficulties that had been experienced with the provinces in agreeing to any change in the constitution to meet that situation, the following appears:
This attitude of the provinces gives no ground for the hope that central, uniform control and regulation of all transportation, including provincial transportation, is realizable in the near future.
Notwithstanding the existence of this barrier of provincial opposition, it will be well to state briefly the views expressed on the subject.
Then here are set out the views of various groups, such as the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and so on.
I feel that if the matter of trucking and the jurisdiction over it were placed in the hands of the transport board, it might be exceedingly difficult for that board properly to discharge its responsibility in view of the question as to the jurisdiction of the board so to do.
I welcome this report, first because it at least recommends the removal of discrimination in freight rates. It does not refer directly
80709-125i
Supply-Transport
to discrimination but it recommends equalization of freight rates which indeed is just another way of saying the removal of discrimination which we in the western provinces, as well as those in the maritimes, have suffered from over the years.
If we are to build up this country and develop our natural resources one of the first things that must be done is to equalize freight rates. In the western provinces we have infinite natural resources that could be developed. Manufacturing industries could be established there. Sites for power development are available in the province of Saskatchewan, but industrialization cannot be achieved until such time as there is an equalization of freight rates. The injustices of the past in this direction have gone a long way to deny industrial development not only to the western provinces but also to the maritimes.
Now, sir, I think that all hon. members-[DOT] and I say that without regard to party consideration-will appreciate the recommendation for the continuance and the maintenance of the Crowsnest agreement. There never was any demand that I know of for many years for the removal of those advantageous rates in so far as the grain products of the prairie provinces are concerned, but it is well that the matter was discussed and that evidence was given respecting it, and that the authority of this commission is behind the maintenance of those rates.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. In the introductory paragraph to chapter 17 the commission sets out the broad outlines of Canada's national transportation policy. It set them out as follows. It said that the national transportation policy had its inception in:
(a)	The construction of the Intercolonial railway to enable the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to market their products in central Canada:
(b)	The construction of the Canadian Pacific railway to unite British Columbia with the rest of Canada;
(c)	The agreement to establish and maintain continuous communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Canada;
(d)	The terms of union with Newfoundland providing for the taking over of the Newfoundland railway and steamship services and the entrustment thereof to the Canadian National Railways, and the agreement to maintain a freight and passenger steamship service between Port aux Basques and North Sydney.
This matter will be dealt with by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West. Then the chapter goes on to deal with the various steps that have been taken in developing our railway system. Among other things it deals with the construction of the Hudson Bay railway and the development of the port

Supply-Transport
of Churchill. I am going to say a few words now regarding that. I realize that during the past year there has been more extensive use of the Hudson Bay railway than for a period of several years, but there is still lots of room for improvement in that connection. I feel that greater encouragement should be given to the utilization of the facilities at Churchill.
During the last few days many hon. members have visited Churchill and have seen something of the potentialities inherent in the developments that have taken place there during the past year. Churchill harbour has moved 6,700,500 bushels of wheat to overseas markets, and the ships on their voyages to Churchill have brought in 3,400 tons of merchandise. The savings on freight to the western farmer on the wheat shipped by way of Churchill amounted last year to $810,000. Greater use should be made of the facilities there at the present time.
The situation with regard to damp wheat in the western provinces is a serious one. The elevator at Churchill has a capacity of 2,500,000 bushels and a drier capacity of 20,000 bushels a day. These facilities should be used now in order to save millions of bushels of wheat that otherwise is in danger of being destroyed as a result of the condition in which it is.
The use of those facilities can no longer be excused on the ground of dangers to transportation and high insurance rates. The insurance rates have been reduced. The use of those facilities today, if given the encouragement that I should like the Minister of Transport to give to the shipment of wheat in that direction, would mean a very great saving to the western farmer. Certainly, the facilities have not been used to any extent at all since 1935. Last year's shipment of some 6 million bushels is merely a drop in the bucket when compared with the use to which those facilities could be put.
The wheat board is an emanation of the crown. There is no reason why the wheat board, in endeavouring to secure, as it should, the largest possible return for the farmer, should not be utilizing these facilities. I do make an appeal to the minister, as hon. members have on other occasions, for greater encouragement of the use of those facilities; for in that way we in the western provinces will be enabled to overcome some of the handicaps resulting from our geographical position, and will be able to assure to the farmer the greatest possible return for his products.
Just one other matter and I am through. Our position geographically is that we in the
rMr. Diefenbaker.]
western provinces find a gap of five hundred or six hundred miles in northern Ontario, which has the result of greatly increasing the freight rates and) the cost of the commodities that are shipped in to the western provinces. That so-called gap is an economic gap between the east and the west. It is one that should not be detrimental to the people of the western provinces. That gap is a part of confederation; it is part of our geographical position. When the time comes to determine the question of freight rates, so far as the western provinces are concerned, the government of Canada should give a subsidy in order to cover the extra cost of transportation in that five hundred or six hundred mile gap to the end that we in the western provinces will not be discriminated against because of our geographical position. The problem is, how to overcome it. It is one that has received the support of the government of Saskatchewan; it is one that has received the support of the leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan; it is one that has received the support of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party in Saskatchewan, and I think generally of the western provinces. There is no reason-


Mr. Smith (Moose Mountain):: And of the
Liberal members at Ottawa.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes; I was not taking anything away from the Liberal members in Ottawa. There is no doubt that they give it support, and if they will just exercise-I will not say restraint, because sometimes they exercise too much of that-enthusiastic support, both publicly and in caucus for this, I am sure-


Lionel Chevrier: They have.


John George Diefenbaker: They have? I am glad
to hear that. Enthusiastic support from them up to the present moment has not warmed the heart of the minister sufficiently to bring it into effect. I only hope that they will continue the warming process. I will join with them in it to the end that something be done to remove the injustice that arises in consequence of that gap. We are united on that. There is no political difference between us. The hon. member for Moose Mountain knows that we are united in that. Fairness demands it. I should like to see the minister go further than to say, as he did a moment ago, that representations have been made. I would rather hear him say that every possible support will be given by him to the end that this injustice of geography will not be detrimental to us in the western provinces in future years.
This report is one worthy of a great commission presided over by an outstanding

public servant of the western provinces. I sum up what I have endeavoured' to say, first, that I am in agreement with the commission that discrimination must end and that equalization of freight rates must take place; and secondly, that the Crowsnest agreement shall not be interfered with. Then, thirdly, I suggest a subsidy from the country as a whole to remove the detrimental effects of the gap in northern Ontario which, up to the present time, have operated most unjustly in connection with the development of the western provinces industrially and' have meant higher costs for the commodities our people have to buy. Fourth, I would bespeak the active support of the Department of Transport in the making of representations to the wheat board; for the utilization of the Hudson Bay railway to a far greater extent than at present.
One has some realization of the saving there would be to the farmers of the western plains when he realizes that on 6,500,000 bushels there is a saving in freight rates of $810,000. The use of the facilities even to the extent of 35 million bushels, which I am informed is quite possible, and would require very little extension in the facilities now existing at Churchill, would mean a tremendous saving to the farmers of western Canada.
Those, sir, are in general the representations I make to the minister at this time, coupled with my support for adding to the duties of the board of transport commissioners responsibility over maritime and air transportation, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The board is now semijudicial, having at its head an outstanding judge and as its deputy chief a member of the bar of more than ten years' standing. My suggestion is that consideration be given by this board, not only in the interests of the assurance of equity and justice as between the broadcasting corporation in its public capacity and the private radio stations, but also with the thought that by bringing these together under one board which is large enough and has the available talent to discharge its responsibilities considerable economy would thereby be effected and we would have as well the assurance of judicial consideration of many of the problems this board is singularly fitted to survey.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I deal with just one or two of the matters brought to my attention by the hon. member for Lake Centre. I was pleased to hear him speak so highly and so eloquently of the chief commissioner, the Hon. Mr. Turgeon, and of the report itself. I think the fact that he speaks in such a vein about the
Supply-Transport
report, rather than in a critical manner, is under all the circumstances most helpful.
However, when he deals with the matter of the gap I am sure he has not read the statement I made in the house the other evening in reply to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, because at that time I did say what the intention was. I said in effect that a committee had been established in the Department of Transport to deal with draft legislation covering the subject of equalization, and that I was hopeful that it would be possible to implement this legislation at the present session of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that include a
subsidy for the gap?


Lionel Chevrier: I said one went with the other; but I made it clear, because I wanted to be fair with the house, that I had to bring before my cabinet colleagues the draft amendments concerning the legislation before final decision could be taken. Because there are not only the eighteen or twenty sections referred to in the first part of the report which one must consider, but there are a number of other sections in the Railway Act as my hon. friend knows, which must be taken into account when one is considering what the relationship of those sections will be to the eighteen or twenty amendments recommended by the commission. So that I think my hon. friend need not have any apprehension, so far as that part of the report is concerned. I have no authority to go any further. But I do say the government is quite sincere in giving effect to the first part of the report at least.
The hon. member did speak also of his concern with respect to the port of Churchill, and asked me to give attention to the greater use of the facilities in that area. I would remind him that it is not the responsibility of the minister to direct traffic to one port rather than to another. It is his responsibility to see that when traffic moves the facilities are available to handle it.
I think the national harbours board and my predecessors in the Department of Transport have always taken the view that it is for the responsible authorities in the various national harbours, municipal or otherwise, to promote trade toward those ports. What we did do in the Department of Transport however, in connection with the port of Churchill, was to extend the season of navigation by seeing that greater aids to navigation were provided, and seeing that more loading and unloading facilities were there in the event of traffic coming to that port. Also there was the not unimportant factor of reducing insurance rates. True, as I said in the house, that

Supply-Transport
is a matter over which we have no direct control. But we did bring to those in the United Kingdom who are responsible for establishing those rates representations which I believe had the effect of reducing them.
I can assure the hon. member that we will continue to give to harbour facilities and railway facilities the best possible attention, and to encourage the movement of wheat outward through Churchill, as well as the movement of other cargo. But unless the shippers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere decide to move commodities through the port, I do not think there is any authority in the Department of Transport which I would have to direct them to use one port rather than another.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the minister mean by the use of the word "encourage"?


Lionel Chevrier: We might encourage traffic by bringing to the attention of the Hudson Bay Railway and Canadian National Railways authorities the fact that it is possible to move greater quantities of wheat through Churchill, and the fact that there are elevator facilities there to handle large quantities.
The hon. member referred to the fact that we had moved more than 6 million bushels last year. When one takes into consideration the fact that the movement through Churchill has been more than doubled in the last five or six years, I think it is some indication of our intention to see that these facilities are used to their fullest extent.
I do not want to delay this, but I do want to say I was interested in the attitude taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre and also that of the leader of the C.C.F. party with reference to the co-ordination policy outlined in the report. The position they take is diametrically opposed to that taken by the member of the Social Credit party who spoke this afternoon. I think the interpretation placed by the hon. member for Lake Centre upon the recommendation is the proper one. I think what the chairman and the commissioners had in mind was that there should be control or co-ordination of water, air and railway transport through the board, but not control of trucking, be it interprovincial, international or intraprovincial. I do not think that was in the minds of the commissioners.
I may have been mistaken, but I understood the other evening that the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra was opposed to the co-ordination policy as recommended in the last part of the report.


Mr. Green:: In so far as the Canadian maritime commission was concerned. I am

very dubious about the transport board trying to handle the job of that commission.


Lionel Chevrier: There seemed to be some apprehension in his mind with regard to that policy. While the position taken by the hon. member is somewhat different from that taken by the hon. member for Lake Centre, I am glad that these opinions and views are coming out in the house.
I had forgotten to reply to one point raised by the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton. I indicated to him that he would find in a certain section the point on the Canadian Pacific opposite to Diamond Junction. That is to be found in section 4 of the act, and the name of the place is Boundary.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add my congratulations to those expressed by other hon. members to Mr. Justice Turgeon and the members of the commission who generally speaking have made a very excellent study of and report upon this complex problem. Congratulations are certainly due to the chairman and the commissioners.
The hon. member for Lake Centre quoted from page 277 of the report which refers to authority to be vested in the commission. At the bottom of the page it is stated:
The seven provincial governments which united in asking for the appointment of this commission were questioned on this matter. Of the seven, six stated that they would not agree to divest themselves of their exclusive jurisdiction over intra-provincial motor transport.
I think those words are important. I happened to be one of those who were fortunate in being permitted to visit Churchill by air this past week end. It was a most educational and instructional trip from many points of view. We were taken through the elevator there and we saw the modern equipment they have for the drying of damp grain at the rate of some 20,000 bushels a day. After the information I obtained there I find it almost unbelievable that these facilities have not been used to a greater extent.
I have placed a question on the order paper in connection with the amount of damp grain of the 1950 crop that has been moved there for drying and cleaning, and also what has been moved to Fort William. I was told that there had not been any damp grain from the 1950 crop moved into Churchill. I know that this matter is not under the jurisdiction of the minister, but I do want to point out that I think there should be greater co-operation among the departments of government.
If there has been one problem faced by the wheat growers of the prairies that is

more difficult than any other, it is the handling of this damp and tough grain. We have this modern equipment at Churchill with only a small part of the storage capacity occupied, and it does not seem to me to be ordinary business sense that more damp grain has not been moved there. I am sure the producers of western Canada will be shocked to learn that this modern equipment which is owned by the government is not being utilized at all.
I have spoken on transportation before and I am vitally concerned in the Crowsnest pass rates. I have asked that they be not interfered with and I am happy to know that a recommendation has been made that they should not be interfered with.
Several speakers have referred to the 400 or 500 mile gap between Sudbury and Fort William, to which reference is made in the report. That is a very barren stretch of country, as all of us who have to travel it to come down here know. Generally speaking, I think the taxpayers should be called upon to subsidize the haul over that stretch. It is essential in the interests of both eastern and western Canada that there be no division in this great nation of ours. It is essential that services are kept operating over this gap of barren country, but the cost of operating these services should not be entirely borne by the producers of either the west or the east.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
James Arthur Ross: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned for dinner I was discussing the long haul between Sudbury and Fort William, what a dormant section of the country that was, and saying that in my opinion that haul should be subsidized in the interests of both western and eastern Canada as recommended in the report of the royal commission. At page 287 of the report, among the observations by Dr. H. F. Angus, I find this:
Amalgamation has few friends. Various forms of joint operation have been carefully considered and condemned. It is true that the estimate of the future earning power of the Canadian National Railways made by its officials at the hearings was so low that a weary taxpayer might have wondered if a lease to the Canadian Pacific Railway on mutually advantageous terms would have its attractions. The alternative of state ownership of all railways has merits which have commended it to most modern states. But economy of operation, though physically possible, is not among these merits. As an immediate practical policy in Canada both these alternatives can be dismissed.
Supply-Transport
Then there is a short paragraph at page 129 of the report itself which I should like to read:
The majority of the provincial representatives and of the representatives of other bodies who appeared before this commission favoured the continuance of the present system of two large railway organizations, with the necessary corollary that the Canadian Pacific Railway must be allowed to live and to operate as a privately owned railway.
It is rather significant that even in this report the Canadian Pacific Railway was used throughout as the yardstick. There was quite an article in the Winnipeg Free Press of December 29, 1950, entitled "The west and freight rates," part of which reads:
At the outset of this latest railway campaign for higher freight rates it is in order to state the position of the west. Since October, 1946, when the railways broke a truce of a quarter century by asking for a horizontal increase in rates, there has been a sharp conflict between seven provincial governments and the railways. The provinces concerned are the three maritime and the four western provinces. This dispute, however, has turned upon whether or no the Canadian Pacific Railway which, by common consent of all the railways, the transport board and the federal government, is the yardstick in the fixing of rates, required the increases in freight rates sought from the transport board. The west joined the maritimes in saying "No." But no distinctively western argument was advanced.
Further on the article states:
Documentary proof of the foregoing will not be required by all who have followed the freight rate cases before the transport board beginning with the western rates case taken by the Winnipeg board of trade in 1911. But as a reminder attention is directed to the following figures, drawn from exhibits filed with the transport board. These figures cover the net earnings of the C.P.R. from 1907 to 1925 and 1936 to 1945 inclusive-29 out of a period of 39 years. Ten years are missing because the transport board refused to issue the necessary order to have them produced. These missing years, however, would only buttress an already impregnable case. In studying the figures, it should be borne in mind that the Canadian Pacific handles more than twice as much freight on its eastern lines as on its western lines:
Canadian Pacific Railway Net Earnings
Eastern Lines Western Lines
1907-11	
$43,500,000	$ 91,500,0001912-16	
60,000,000	152,500,0001917-21	
81,000,000	174,500,0001922-25	
56,000,000	101,500,0001936	
5,855,663	17,455,4461937	
10,013,518	13,728,7291938	
3,319,735	17,432,7311939	
5,949,860	22,573,9601940	
14,058,900	21,580,5381941	
16,951,233	29,006,3631942	
20,885,093	27,302,5961943	
19,544,002	29,667,5651944	
11,537,387	31,622,2771945	
13,090,407	22,963,927$361,705,798	$753,334,134
So great is the discrimination against western Canada that with half the traffic the C.P.R. has consistently made more than twice the profits in the west than in the east.

Supply-Transport
In facing this new campaign by the railways for higher freight rates the west must see to it that any further increase in rates is not loaded solely upon western Canada. Yet that is exactly what will happen if the transport board orders horizontal increases in standard rates which because of water, highway and other competition will be meaningless paper increases in the central provinces but will be real hard-cash increases here in the west.
And in taking this position, it should be clear that the west will not be asking state assistance for the railways by way of subventions, bonuses, or subsidies of any kind. The west as the foregoing figures prove has more than paid its way in freight rates and may be forgiven for believing that other sections of Canada should at least pay their way.
Irrespective of any need which may be proved by the railways, there can be no justification for raising freight rates in the west until the effective rates- that is the rates which are actually paid-in Ontario and Quebec have been brought up to the level of the rates in the west.
This question of a horizontal increase in freight rates and the injustice done thereby to western Canada and the maritimes was well covered this afternoon by the hon. member for Lake Centre. Without taking more of the time of the committee, I should just like to sum up what I said before the dinner hour by congratulating Mr. Justice Turgeon and the members of his commission. They certainly put a great deal of work into this investigation and brought in what I think is on the whole a very fair report. I want to repeat what I have advocated in past years, and say that I agree with the commission recommendation that the Crowsnest pass freight rates should be left under the statute. I have already asked that subsidization be provided for this bridge from Sudbury to Fort William. It is a long haul of between four and five hundred miles through an area that does not produce much traffic.
I want to repeat what I said before the recess concerning the Churchill road, and the fact that the government owns a splendid storage grain elevator at the port of Churchill. There are facilities there for storing approximately 2-5 million bushels of grain. This week end I learned that in the port of Churchill there is only a small percentage of the storage space occupied. There is great modern grain drying machinery in that elevator which has not been used at all this year according to the officials there. When you consider that it has a drying capacity of 20,000 bushels per day, I think that could have been a great help with some of this damp grain that is still lying in the open fields in the prairie provinces. Had it been moved to that port, and that equipment utilized, much of it might have been saved.
During the Easter recess I sat in the Manitoba legislature and heard the minister of agriculture for that province state that there was approximately a million bushels 
of damp grain still in the province of Manitoba. I imagine there is more than that in Saskatchewan which has not been moved yet. You can imagine how important it would have been to utilize that drying equipment at Churchill.
This brings up another matter which was mentioned the other day, and that is the matter of a box car controller. 1 know the minister rather chastised the member for Assiniboia over the question he put on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: No, about a statement he
made in the house which was erroneous.


James Arthur Ross: I was going to say that
I am not in a position to substantiate or contradict the statement he made or the statement made by the Minister of Transport. It would seem to me, as I have already pointed out, that the facilities and equipment at the port of Churchill, owned by the government, for drying this damp grain, could have been utilized if cars had been provided. This grain, may become a loss to the producer, because the chairman of the grain commission has pointed out that if the grain cannot be gathered up and dried before the warm weather, he is fearful it will become a total loss to the producers. It is probable this loss could be avoided if a box car controller were appointed. I do not know how worthy that argument is, because I have not the other facts to buttress it. If there is no other reason for not moving this damp grain to Churchill, a box car controller could have supplied the cars to move it under the supervision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, under whose supervision the transport of grain rests. I am not blaming the Minister of Transport, because I know it is not his responsibility.
I wish to say once again what a fine job the Turgeon commission has done, and to compliment the members of the commission for their work.


Mr. Ferrie:: I should like to say how
pleased we are to find that the minister has taken this report to heart and is appointing a committee to consider that portion of the haul that we in western Canada call no man's land. I am not going to prolong this debate by saying anything more about the commission's report.
There are one or two things that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. In 1948 the seven provinces made a lot of representations about freight rates. During that period some remarks were made concerning preferential rates to certain bodies. As a result western Canada lost two very

important preferentials. One was a preferential that we had ever since railroading began in western Canada. Even in the old Mackenzie-Mann days, when they were very much in arrears, they gave us that preference because they knew it was a benefit to the railroads to have the farmers sow good seed. We have now lost the preferential rate on the transportation of registered seed and seed grain. I would ask the minister if he would take this into consideration. Last year in western Canada the railroads did not lose any money, they made a profit of approximately $9 million. In eastern Canada they lost around $12 million. In asking for this preferential rate on seed grain, we are not asking for something that is going to be harmful to the railroads, but something that is going to be of benefit to them, as well as to those who are producing the great grain crop. This rate on registered seed will be of benefit to the railroads by reason of the extra bushels that are grown by the producers of that class of grain.
Just leaving that, I should like to mention one other preferential rate which we lost, and that was on the movement of registered livestock. By some means or other that preferential rate was lost last fall. We could not establish it. We have tried, time and time again, to get this preferential back, but we cannot do it. I am appealing to the minister to do something if he possibly can to help the registered livestock industry in Canada. They produce a lot of registered stock, in both eastern and western Canada, and this exchange that goes on is of great benefit, not only to Canada as a whole but to the railroads individually. Will the minister kindly take this into consideration when he is arranging some of the meetings with the railroads.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, in deference to the minister I had intended to reserve my remarks until item No. 491 on the Hudson Bay railroad was called. Since the member for Lake Centre, the member for Souris, and some others have said something about it, I thought I might as well say what I have to say now. I have always, of course, been interested in this railroad and in this port. I was interested in it before I came to parliament, and naturally my interest has increased over the last five years.
In 1945, the first year I came to parliament, my friend and former colleague, Mr. Moore, the member for Churchill, introduced a resolution, one of those useful private resolutions sometimes termed academic but nevertheless at times productive of results, in that they promote the desired cause in the country or bring some pressure to bear on the
Supply-Transport
government which, sometimes after a long period of years, adopts the thing as its own and introduces the legislation we desired in the first place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says "hear, hear" and with good reason because I understand that for some years before I came to this house he had been introducing private members' bills with regard to income tax exemptions for union dues and certain professional fees. He has continued to introduce them. I had the pleasure of backing him up in that attempt with regard to teachers; and now in the budget announcement the other night we are toldi that henceforth union dues and teachers' professional fees are exempt.
I think that these private members' resolutions are a good institution. Some of my Liberal friends, referring to my own resolution on education, were shall I say unkind enough to say that these private members' resolutions are a waste of time.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I think the hon. member should make his remarks relevant to the item now before the committee.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Chairman, and shall proceed to talk upon the matter in hand. I was led off my subject, and I shall come back to the exact point. Mr. Moore, the former member for Churchill, introduced into this house in October, 1945, one of those useful private members' resolutions. The resolution asked; for the consideration of the federal government to giving all the encouragement that they could muster for that route and for that port. On that particular occasion the resolution was not talked out but was allowed to come to a vote. There was a favourable vote of 105 to 24, as recorded at page 1110 of Hansard of that date. On that occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce used the following words in regard to the Churchill route, as reported at page 1109 of Hansard of October 15, 1945:
I feel that In post-war years the port will develop as far as its physical limitations will permit, and I can assure the house that the government will make every effort to see that that development is pressed actively and vigorously.
There are degrees of vigour and there are degrees of activity. I want to say that on the whole I wish to pay tribute to the dominion government, to the minister, to the Department of Transport and to some outside organizations for the interest and the encouragement which they have given to this particular matter. I would include the provincial government of Saskatchewan

Supply-Transport
which has been active in that same good cause. The Hudson bay route association is of course well known for its work in that regard. I think of Mr. Frank Eliason, a man who, I was going to say, has grown weary in well doing, but he will never be that; I will say rather that he is growing old in well doing and is now somewhat broken in health. I think that those of us who come from the province of Saskatchewan, and particularly from its northern part, should pay special tribute to that man who has given his whole life in the cause of co-operation and of agriculture in the province of his adoption. To Mr. Streeton too, who is the chairman of that active organization, one should pay a tribute and to that old-timer, Mr. MacNeill, who has come down here on several occasions. While I mention those delegations, I should like to thank the dominion government for the fine reception that they gave to those western adventurers who came down to follow in the path of other pioneers with somewhat similar names who have brought honour in the opening up of the western part of this country. Then there is Mr. Hansen, the director of trade services at Regina, Mr. Graham Spry, who is trade commissioner in London for the province of Saskatchewan, and who is in England working in the same cause and to whom some tribute should be paid.
As I said, the people of the prairie west are interested in this route, and the people of my own native city are not disinterested. You have to live on the prairies a while before you realize to what extent there is a fascination for prairie dwellers in the sight of water. Some of my friends who have come from the city of Winnipeg will perhaps not agree with me in that regard, but in Saskatchewan we like water, and we like to think that we have in that central part of Canada, a proper port of our own, which may be available to us.
Many have visited that port in the last several years, Many have taken advantage of the excursions which have been arranged. Many have gone up there. The other day many hon. members went up by the invitation, I understand, of the Minister of National Defence. I was not able to take advantage of that opportunity, but I had been there two years before.
To come to the matter of the route and the port itself, as I say, I pay tribute to the encouragement given by, I think, every organization concerned. I think that the route has been an unqualified success over the last year or two. In 1950, twenty ships entered that harbour and in that year some 6,700,000 bushels of wheat were exported and 3,400 tons of merchandise were imported.

Those amounts, particularly with regard to imports, are still too small. The smallness of the import is probably due to the lack of knowledge on the part of the British exporting firms as to the savings they could make by using that port. In the matter of British cars-those little cars we see upon our streets -the saving amounts to from $35 on the smaller type to $60 on the larger.
The city of Saskatoon is the main distributing centre for goods in northern Saskatchewan. The wholesalers and distributors there are particularly anxious that the port should succeed in order that they may make available the savings upon the goods, so that those goods may be distributed more cheaply through the area which they serve. There has also been formed a western import and export company, a name which sounds a bit familiar. Its business is to drum up business through that port to the city of Saskatoon and the other northern cities.
The figures that I have given report progress, and I can report progress in other directions also. We are told' that the commonwealth shipping committee is nowadays adopting a; much more friendly attitude towards the insurance of vessels going into Churchill. The marine insurance rates have been lowered by 35 per cent, and I think that we may look forward to the day-and some of us may see it-when the marine insurance rates into that port will be equal to those into the port of Halifax or the port of Montreal. May I say that there never was any real reason for those high rates except, on the part of those who issued them, a lack of knowledge as to the safety of that particular route.
Down through the years we have had statements as to the safety of that port. I am going to quote from a statement made by a sea captain who used it. In a letter which he had addressed to Mr. Hansen, director of trade services at Regina, he said in part:
I should like to go on record as stating that the passage from the U.K. to Churchill is every bit as safe as the voyage from Britain to Montreal or any other St. Lawrence port.
Perhaps indeed it is safer. The weather on the northern route is not any worse than that encountered on the way to the St. Lawrence. While some fog will be met, it usually clears within an hour or so and consists only of patches. It is certainly no worse than the fog often encountered off the Newfoundland banks.
There is another interesting little quotation that throws some light on the same situation, and that is in regard to the length of the season. The length of the season, sir, has always been a sore point with shippers coming into that port. It has always been felt that the insurance companies kept themselves very very safe indeed as to the length

19G7
of the season which was covered by the insurance rates. This is from a ship's captain who had just come through the strait. He says:
Regarding the length of the season. As you know, on our first trip to Churchill we lay off Cape Chidley at the eastern end of the strait for 2i days because our insurance would not allow us to enter the strait before 0001 hours on August 5. The weather during these two days perfect-calm sea and unlimited visibility. The N. B. McLean said we could proceed any time, but because of insurance regulations we could not.
Does it not seem very silly that in beautiful weather, and a calm sea, with no ice in sight, ships have to lie outside for two days simply because there is no flexibility in the insurance season. But in this regard too I have progress to report, because there has been a lengthening of the insurable season, actually by ten days. July 26 instead of August 5 is now the beginning of the season. It is felt by many people that the season could run until the end of October.
As to the port of Churchill itself, some of the people of whom I am speaking saw the place for themselves the other day. There has been an improvement there over the last five years which is almost unbelievable. There has been an improvement in the town-site itself. Those of us who were interested in this throughout the years have been complaining because the Manitoba government was not prepared to sell lots in the port of Churchill. It is not very much encouragement to build a house if one cannot own the lot on which he wants to build. The only way you could do it before was to take a twelvemonths lease. Surely that is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed, particularly if you were going to make a substantial investment. Therefore once again I am pleased to report progress and thank the Manitoba government for what they have done in that regard. The Manitoba government has now made it possible for people to own their lots. The military establishments near that town of course have promoted business. Their existence is at least a matter of public knowledge. Their presence there has promoted business and all year round activities. There are churches, schools, and so on. I want to say that from the point of view of the route and the port itself, the building up of permanent residence there is an important part of its promotion, because the people who have handled the wheat cargoes have had to be imported from Montreal or from some other port. They have had to be brought in for this particular work. Surely that was an expensive business. But if in that northern country we could have such developments as would provide a permanent population with a reasonable hope of earning a
Supply-Transport
year round living, then we could take from that permanent population the necessary labour to handle the machinery of the port and1 assist in the loading of the ships.
The hon. member for Souris has expressed some doubt as to his own figures which he gave a little while ago relating to drying of grain at Churchill. I can assure him that they were quite correct. I asked a question which will be found at page 1266 of Hansard of March 15, 1951, as follows:
What is the wheat bushel storage capacity of the elevator at Churchill?
We are not interested in that part of the question at the moment, but we are interested in this one:
What is the drying capacity of that elevator in terms of number of bushels per day?
May I say, sir, that I was startled when I received the answer and was informed that in that plant-and it is a magnificent plant, one of the finest grain elevators in the world- it was possible to dry from 15,000 to 20,000 bushels per day of 24 hours, depending on the moisture content. I almost refused to believe that, but these are the official figures. That, sir, is remarkable, and if that machinery had been operating full blast since the first combines were turned into the fields of Saskatchewan last fall, by this time it would have dried some proportion of the grain which is now lying damp or tough in the farmers' granaries or in elevators in the province of Saskatchewan. That would have been a tremendous help. Who is responsible for that plant and that machinery lying idle I do not know, but I think it should have been in operation since the end of the crop year. What an accumulation of grain we might have had lying in storage in the Churchill elevator, because there is ample room for it there. The capacity is 2,500,000 bushels. According to the answers I received, the number of bushels of wheat in the elevator is something under half a million bushels, in fact, 463,000 bushels. Had other grain been dried and stored there it would be at least in position for shipment. There is not the excuse this year that there was in former years that there was a keen demand for this wheat in Europe, and that it was necessary to have it in position where it could be shipped during the months when Churchill was not in operation. There is no such reason as that now. There is going to be a carry-over of this wheat whether we like it or not, and unfortunately there is going to be a carry-over of wheat which is not going to be in good condition. If it were dried and stored there, at least we would have it in position for the first ship

Supply-Transport
that steamed through the straits the first month of the new shipping year in 1951.
I have pleaded before, and I plead again, for the co-operation of the government, the railroad, the wheat board and the wheat pools in regard to the promotion of shipping through that port; My plea has been, and for five years it has been, that we should give the port a chance. If this thing is worth doing it is worth doing right. And if we would for one year ship 15 million bushels of wheat to that port, a thing which could easily be managed, we would take off the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country any burden which they are carrying at present in regard to the port of Churchill.
I notice that this year the deficit is down by $150,000 according to item 491 of the estimates. That is all to the good. It has been argued by people who know, and I am convinced it is so, that if through that port there could be put 15 million bushels of wheat, the port and the railroad would not cost the taxpayers of this country one single cent, there would be no deficit. There are others who believe that 20 million bushels or 25 million bushels could be shipped through that port. I am not an expert, and I will not say, but I repeat that 15 million bushels would pay the necessary bills, and there is no shortage of wheat in the preferential area. It has been estimated by those who know that in that country, which would be applicable to the preferential rates, 65 million bushels of wheat is the average crop there. If we cannot handle 25 million bushels we can surely ship 15 million or 20 million. I am sure that, now when there is lots of wheat available, this is the time for us to try the experiment and give the route a chance to prove itself. When I speak this way I am not speaking altogether in the interests of Saskatoon. I am not speaking only in the interests of the northern farmer but rather in the interests of the nation; because the present deficit must be paid by the taxpayers of the whole nation.
As I said, the route is of national importance. There is of course the strategic factor into which I shall not go at this time. But I do believe the amount of care the government has given the port in the last year or so is not unconnected with its knowledge that the port of Churchill in certain contingencies might be a very useful place to have, indeed.
There are other things that may be shipped from Churchill as well as wheat. We were greatly disappointed a year or so ago when, after arrangements had been made to ship 10 million feet of spruce out of that port, a rise to freight rates precluded any such shipment. So much for exports.

As to imports, we feel that many more could be handled, if perhaps there were a little better organization so that the loading of wheat and the unloading of imports could go on at the same time. The minister has told us that one of his cares and responsibilities in regard to the port is to see that the proper equipment is there. Here is one thing I suggest he might look into.
Westerners do not like all this talk about dumping duties, when it comes to the matter of encouraging imports to Churchill. When we are told that we may impose dumping duties against, for instance, British motor cars, hundred of which were imported through Churchill last year, we do not like that sort of talk. I have had several complaints in the city of Saskatoon from firms who have told me that they had to cancel orders they had placed for British linoleum, and for that very same reason. The linoleum had been ordered for delivery through the port of Churchill and over the Hudson bay route, but the orders had to be cancelled.
One other point, and I shall have finished. I would refer to the matter of shipping feed grains to the maritime provinces as something in which I have been interested, and particularly in this connection. I shall speak only briefly on the matter, because I do not want to detain the house too long. I do believe however that most of the difficulty in connection with feed grains, particularly in the matter of the poor quality of those grains sent to the maritimes, is a matter of storage.
If the people in the maritimes, through their co-operative institutions, could buy quantities of good clean western grain, ticketed as No. 5 or 6, as the case may be, and all of a certified standard and with a certain weight per bushel, so that they could know what they were getting, and if in the maritimes they had storage elevators built into which that grain could be put and out of which it could go for grinding and distribution by their own organization, they would have grain of standard quality a supply of which they could always be assured.
Under present circumstances it is difficult for the maritime farmer to know what he is getting when he buys feed grain in, shall we say, the city of Halifax. I have always said that if government built or co-operatively built storage facilities were available shiploads of this feed grain, certified according to grade, could be shipped to the maritime provinces by the sea route during the time when the Churchill route is open. I think an intercoastal trade of that sort could be built up for the general benefit of not only the farmers in the west, who would have a market for

their grain, but also of the maritimers who would have a source of suitable feed. So much for the subject of feed grains.
I believe this brings me to the conclusion of what I have to say in the matter. Once again let me pay tribute to the effort of the government and to the encouragement it has given us and other people. I am glad, to say that this is not a political matter. I am pleased to say, too, that Mr. Moore's resolution was never a political resolution. I believe the hon. members I see before me who represent the Liberal party in Saskatchewan can, and I know they will, join with me and with the hon. member for Lake Centre who spoke this afternoon in support of the route. I believe that so far as we in Saskatchewan are concerned, we will present a united front in this important matter.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on two matters dealt with definitely in the report. I have given them a good deal of consideration, although I cannot say I have studied other matters as thoroughly.
The representations made to the royal commission by the Newfoundland government and by other bodies from Newfoundland were directed to two paragraphs in the commission, as follows:
(a)	To review and report upon the effect, if any, of economic, geographic or other disadvantages under which certain sections of Canada find themselves in relation to the various transportation services therein . . .
(b)	To review the Railway Act with respect to such matters as guidance to the board in general freight rate revisions, competitive rates, international rates, etc., and recommend such amendments therein as may appear to them to be advisable.
Amongst other things, the Newfoundland government sought lower freight rates and improved facilities at North Sydney, which is the terminus in Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, which is the opposite terminus in Newfoundland, and on the North Sydney to Louisburg Railway. They also wanted absorption of the handling charges for shipments to Louisburg when the port of North Sydney is closed in the wintertime because of ice, and a car ferry to operate between Port aux Basques and- North Sydney. They also wanted a free port to be established on the south coast of Newfoundland. Some hon. members may not be familiar with the expression "free port", but it has been mentioned in Newfoundland politics for twenty-five years. The idea of a free port is a port where goods can be exchanged between nations without the collection of any customs duty. It was desired by the government that this should be established at bay d'Espoir on
Supply-Transport
the south coast of Newfoundland which is an ice-free port. It also wanted a military road to be built between Gander airport and bay d'Espoir.
The first question which was brought up has been dealt with by the board of transport commissioners with the pleasing result for Newfoundland that they won their case. The improved facilities are being dealt with to a certain extent under the estimates now before the house. I understand the car ferry is being built at the present time. A large amount of money has been voted for the improvement of the docking facilities at Port aux Basques and at North Sydney.
The other questions with respect to a free port and the military road were not approved. There are certain general considerations in connection with Newfoundland I should like to draw to the attention of the committee. They arise through the transformation of our economy brought about by confederation. Perhaps hon. members are not sufficiently aware of that tremendous transformation. Before 1949, when we had our own government, Newfoundland traded with the whole world. We could impose duties in respect of Canada, the United Kingdom or the United States, or any other country, just the same as Canada does. We were bound only by international agreements such as the empire preference agreements of 1932 and the like.
But with confederation, and becoming part of Canada, we dropped almost all our import trade from other countries, and our trade was switched to the nine provinces of Canada. That meant that the direction in which the trade moved changed as well. St. John's, which had been an international port with shipping from all parts of the world, immediately showed the effects of confederation because ships did not come there in the same numbers. Instead of the traffic coming by water it began to come by land through North Sydney in Nova Scotia, across the narrow strip of water to Port aux Basques, and then around the island in a semi-circle over the Newfoundland railway. The railway could not handle the traffic.
Before confederation trade with Canada consisted of about $55 million of imports into Newfoundland and about $8 million to $10 million of exports to Canada. Since confederation trade with England and the United States has declined greatly. It has been said that trade with the other nine provinces of Canada now amounts to $100 million in the one direction, and $10 million in the other. The great bulk of this trade is being carried by the railway with the result that there have been tie-ups on several occasions. It

Supply-Transport
was necessary to instal new facilities to handle this traffic both at North Sydney and at Port aux Basques.
This seems to me to be a most undesirable state of affairs because the trade used to go to St. John's, the capital of the island with 60,000 papulation. As this traffic is not coming in now by water many longshoremen are faced with a shortage of employment. It means also that large quantities of goods must be carried 550 miles across the island and then distributed from St. John's. Everyone knows that the cost of moving goods by rail is generally much higher than it is to move goods by water.
During the one day that I sat on the railways and steamship committee last year I brought to the attention of the president of the Canadian National Railways the desirability of operating steamships between Halifax or Montreal and St. John's. The Minister of Transport cleverly guided the discussion into other channels and stated that I was trying to bring up the question of rates. That was only incidental. I notice that one of the representations made to the royal commission by the Newfoundland board of trade dealt with that subject. I should like to draw attention to the representations made, which in some respects coincide with what I said last year. On page 143 of the report the board of trade is quoted as having suggested the following remedies:
That the following alternative steamship or car ferry routes be provided:
(a)	From Campbellton, N.B., to Corner Brook for all movements between Comer Brook and Bishop's Falls (necessitating the building of a spur about 300 feet long from the pier at Corner Brook to the railway);
That would eliminate much handling by the railway. The next suggestion was in connection with traffic for the Avalon peninsula. The population of the Avalon peninsula is about 130,000, whereas the population of Newfoundland is 350,000. The area of the Avalon peninsula is about one-sixth of the area of the whole island. It would seem that it would be desirable to have a great deal of the traffic brought to St. John's, which after all is the chief commercial emporium of the island. The second suggestion was as follows:
(b)	Traffic for the Avalon peninsula should be moved by water from Montreal, Halifax and North Sydney to St. John's, Newfoundland, and, to accomplish this object, the Canadian National Railways should use the Admiralty property on the north side of the harbour at St. John's and build a spur about 600 feet long from the main line; and
(c)	The railway should provide two railway car ferries, able also to carry 30 or 40 automobiles, one on the west coast and the other on the east coast.
I do not know whether, the Minister of Transport has given any thought to that

sensible suggestion. There is a network of roads running out of St. John's, but at Port aux Basques there is only a very narrow road presently being built which will go up through Stephenville and then on to Corner Brook. The hope of attracting many tourists into that section of the country is extremely small although I admit that the great sporting rivers are located there. The historic and oldest settled part of the country is on the Avalon peninsula and obviously it would be a wise provision to have a car ferry running from Halifax or Montreal to St. John's.
Last year I was unable to have my car carried from Montreal to St. John's because the boat was filled. I had difficulty at Halifax and could get it carried only on deck. There seems to be a great deal of traffic offering at Montreal and Halifax and there would appear to be room for another steamer on the route. If the country is going in for tourist trade it will be necessary to have a boat capable of carrying motor cars between Halifax and St. John's.
Another recommendation was that St. John's be made a national harbour. I am aware that that deserves a great deal of consideration, but certainly the facilities are there for the handling of much more traffic than is presently being handled. It is much more suitable than Port aux Basques, which has only a small harbour that is difficult to approach and1 besides supports only a small population.
Most of the disabilities from which Newfoundland is suffering, it seems to me, are due to the haste with which the terms of union were settled. The rather obvious things were attended to, but many incidental matters were neglected. As a result they had to be brought to the attention of the royal commission on transportation by the government. The majority of these matters had to be passed on to the Canadian National Railways, the Minister of Transport or the Canadian maritime commission because the royal commission was unable to deal with them. As a result the country was put to a great deal of expense and anxiety.
As I pointed out at the last session, the country has had to pay about $4 million in extra freight rates that should not have been charged. When these matters were brought to the attention of the royal commission they said, "We cannot do anything about these things. The terms of union made provision for the traffic to go through North Sydney and Port aux Basques and we cannot do anything further about it." The same answer was given in connection with many other matters that were raised before the royal commission.

I notice that reference is made to the fact that improvements are going to be made in the railroad. I do not believe there are many refrigerator ears on the island and if agriculture is to be fostered it will be necessary to provided refrigerated space.
There is another matter with which I should like to deal in a way different from any of the speakers who have preceded me. This matter has not been dealt with in the same way by the royal commission. I refer to the question of highway and railway transport. There is an important social principle involved in this question which is not generally apparent and I should like to take a few minutes to discuss it. I would remind hon. members that transportation has developed through the years from the ox-cart travelling over ploughed fields or country lanes and the stage coaches to the point where steam was invented and we had the industrial revolution.
By pooling the resources of a great number of people railroads were built with great rapidity and as a result tremendous industrial progress was made. With the development and invention of the internal combustion engine it became possible to reverse this process. Instead of great companies operating railway systems on fixed lines you can now do almost the same work on the highways. So I say it has become possible to reverse the trend in the capitalistic system and bring about a better distribution of ownership by encouraging the private operation of motor vehicles of various kinds such as busses and trucks.
I notice that the report of the royal commission deals with privately owned trucks, those owned by individual truckers and those owned by large companies who transport their own goods in their own trucks, and finally those trucks which are for hire. The commission reports that the number of trucks for hire is very small in relation to the total number of trucks. It was my information that in the business of transporting goods on a commercial basis there are many truck companies operating at least one hundred or perhaps several hundred trucks, and that is the sort of thing I feel should be regulated. I believe there is a need for someone, whether the federal government or the provinces, to regulate the number of trucks a company may own. It is not very often that we hear any discussion in this house about the restoration of private ownership. Today I was very pleased to hear the leader of the C.C.F. party advise the minister to be very cautious about permitting the railways to go into the trucking business. I think that was wise advice. I would not like to see the railways go into the trucking
Supply-Transport
business, because with their large capital and the government behind the Canadian National, at any rate, it would be possible for them to put a large number of people out of business.
This is a very important principle, although some hon. members may think it ludicrous. It is desirable to have as many owners of trucks and busses as possible, to have men own their trucks and earn a living with them. If you have a company with six hundred trucks operating a trans-Canada transportation business it is possible that within a short time it may become almost as powerful as the railway itself, or at least the most powerful transportation organization in the country other than the railway. That is something I want to bring to the attention of the minister, though it is not necessary that he should do anything about it at the present time. It seems to me that problem looms on the horizon. Looking at the report of the Canadian National Railways and reading the remarks of the president in that report and elsewhere, it seems to me the head of that company is looking with an anxious eye at the competition he is experiencing on the part of truck companies. He seems to be rather afraid that this competition is becoming too much for him, and that he will have to go into that business himself. I do not suppose it would be so bad if it were confined to local transportation near the terminus of a railway; but if the C.N.R. should go into long distance trucking and compete with private truckers I think it would be a bad thing for society.
This is a principle I believe the minister should keep in mind. I am sure in the long run it will be found to be in the best interests of the people of Canada if the railways do not go into highway transportation and if that transportation can be regulated so that no great trucking corporations will be permitted.


Mr. Argue:: I am going to direct the main part of my remarks this evening to the report of the royal commission on transportation. With other hon. members who have taken part in this debate I too am pleased with many, in fact almost all, of the findings of that commission. It is certain that railways are vastly important to all parts of Canada. We on the prairies are particularly dependent on railways to move our products to market and to bring in most of the goods we consume.
Before dealing with the report itself I want to deal briefly with one transportation matter I have raised on various occasions in this house. I refer to the many gaps in the railway lines in Saskatchewan. My

Supply-Transport
hope is that while little has been done in the past, a great deal may be done in the near future to bridge these gaps. I would refer to the gaps mentioned in a resolution I placed on the order paper some time ago, between Neptune and Radville, Minton and Big Beaver, Mankota and Val Marie, Neid-path and Swift Current, Willowbunch and Assiniboia, Cardross and Dunkirk. A few years ago, I think about 1946 or 1947, the Minister of Agriculture said in this house it was his understanding that as one of its first branch line projects after the war the C.P.R. intended to complete the gap between Mankota and Val Marie. I only hope that company will finally get around to bridging that gap.
As has been said by other hon. members, when the report of the royal commission was brought down we were pleased to see the recommendation that the Crowsnest pass rates on grain should be left untouched. We on the prairies who depend upon the production of grain for the greater part of our income feel that these rates are important to us, and that the statutory provisions dealing with them should not be changed. I believe the report of the royal commission substantiates the position taken in this house by members from the prairies, from British Columbia and from the maritimes on many occasions in the past when they contended that there was in fact discrimination in freight rates as between various parts of Canada. I am sure it was pleasant to all those hon. members to see that the royal commission recognized that discrimination, by recommending an equalization of freight rates.
We are pleased also to see something in the report dealing with the recapitalization of the Canadian National. It seems to me that sufficient regard has not been given the huge funded debt and the watered stock of the C.N.R., and I believe a further scaling down should have been recommended. Nevertheless these recommendations if put into effect certainly should improve both the financial and the competitive position of our publicly owned railway. This whole report is built around the need of an equalization of freight rates as between all parts of Canada. The present discrimination has existed for many years. There was discrimination in 1948 before the 21 per cent horizontal increase in freight rates. With each of the four horizontal increases in freight rates granted by the board of transport commissioners in 1948, and since there has been a further accentuation of that discrimination. I say it is indeed important that all possible steps be taken to remove discrimination as it exists between various areas.

The 45 per cent increase in freight rates, which was the final result of these four separate increases, means that the discrimination now is much greater than it was some three years ago.
I wish at this time to quote from page 61 of the report concerning one of the conclusions in regard to horizontal increases. Paragraph No. 4 reads:
The remedy does not lie in the prohibition, statutory or other, of horizontal increases, but is in the hands of the railways themselves.
It goes on to say that the railways should bring in proposals for varying percentage increases on different commodities, and flat instead of percentage increases where these are more suitable, and maxima in appropriate cases in cents per hundred pounds or other unit. Special attention should be given to long haul traffic, and rates on basic or primary commodities. Then it says:
But if the railways do not approach the task in this way, it ought to be the duty of the board to see that they do so.
It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that it has been the duty of the board in the past, as well as the duty of the board now, to take all possible steps to get all the necessary information to ensure that whenever an application comes before the board for an increase in freight rates, whatever increase may be granted, it does not further increase the existing discrimination. On the other hand, any increase should be granted in such a way as to decrease discrimination, and eventually remove it.
On page 126, speaking of equalization, the report says this:
. . . the problem is one peculiarly for the board to resolve finally after the general freight rate investigation and after all parties who may be affected by the proposals have had an opportunity of being heard.
According to the report the problem of the equalization of freight rates is one for the board of transport commissioners after they have completed the general inquiry on freight rates, and after they have heard proposals from all who may be affected. Mr. Chairman, the general freight rate inquiry came about as a result of an order in council passed by the government on April 7, 1948. The royal commission was set up by order in council of January 11, 1949. The point is that the royal commission was set up after the government had instructed the board to undertake a general inquiry into freight rates. The royal commission has completed its work, and its report is published. Do we now have to wait, before we get any concrete action towards the equalization of freight rates, until the board of transport commissioners complete a report that they have already had three years to

consider? I hope that something in the legislation to which the minister referred the other night will result in the board of transport commissioners dealing with this question of discrimination at an early date and not two or three years hence. I hope it is dealt with in such a manner as to remove that discrimination.
The report of the royal commission has this to say on page 271, in respect of certain criticisms that have been made regarding the board of transport commissioners. The report says:
In the main it would seem that the following criticisms of the board are worth recording here, in the expectation that this will lead to an improvement in this procedure for the future, and have been justified by the facts.
I want you to note that according to this statement these criticisms which are outlined have been justified by the facts. Here is criticism No. 1:
That, in the circumstances- of the long delay in disposing of the thirty per cent application made in 1946, the board ought to have granted an interim increase in proper time. On the other hand, however, it must be pointed out, in this regard, that the railways did not ask for such an increase;
2. That the board accepted the assumption that all could be justly and reasonably increased by the same large horizontal percentage increase, regardless of length of haul, the nature of the commodity or the ratio of the freight to the value of the article. This is an unwarranted assumption;
It was an unwarranted assumption according to the royal commission for the board to have increased rates on a horizontal percentage basis. Criticism No. 3 reads:
That the board did not itself obtain, or compel the railways to file with it, proper statistics concerning traffic movements so as to enable it to determine which articles could bear greater or lesser increases in rates;
4.	That the board has not paid sufficient attention to the classification to ascertain 'that articles are properly classified to meet changing conditions;
5.	That the board has not over the years kept close enough supervision over competitive rates. It will be sufficient in this regard to refer to the conclusions on this subject to be found in the section on competitive rates in this report;
6.	That the board has not in the past twenty-three years taken steps to bring about equalization between rates in the west and in the east; and
7.	That the board has not paid proper attention to the effect of increases in rates on long haul traffic.
Mr. Chairman, those criticisms which the royal commission says have been justified by the facts completely substantiate the contention of western members that the board should not have, in making these four awards, increased the rates in a horizontal manner which further added to the discrimination that existed at that time. The royal commission has suggested certain changes in the set-up of the board of transport commissioners. Those suggestions appeal to me as
Supply-Transport
being reasonable. If they are implemented, I do not know whether they will result in the board becoming competent to the extent it is able to get rid of discrimination, but certainly any changes are worth trying. I would suggest that the change which advocates the appointment of board members on a permanent basis rather than a ten-year basis would seem justified, and perhaps the government should implement it. The whole point, as I see it, is not that the report is not a good one in that it does not deal with the question of equalization and horizontal increases. The report recognizes the injustice of horizontal increases of rates that are already discriminatory. But I hope that we shall not have to wait another two or three years or more for the board of transport commissioners to conclude its general inquiry into freight rates before the actual equalization may be finally accomplished.
The other night the minister, in his statement, could not assure the house that during this session amendments would be brought down. He said that discussion was being had with regard to them by a committee of his department and that he had taken the matter up with certain of his colleagues; but I hope that whatever amendments the government has in mind to deal with the question of discrimination will be brought down during the present session. We on the prairies have waited long enough for the removal of discrimination. We do not want to wait until some future session for these amendments to be brought in.
I was pleased to see in the report the suggestion that a $7 million subsidy should be paid by the government to help the railways to maintain that section of them between Sudbury and the head of the lakes. I hope that such a subsidy will be paid by the government. I trust that it will do a great deal of good in removing discrimination. But I want to point out that $7 million in the budget of the Canadian National Railways or of the Canadian Pacific Railway-and it would have to be apportioned between the two of them-is not a large percentage of the income of either system. It is probably something less than one per cent of the total income of the two railway systems. If all we get out of this report, or if all the action the government will take is the payment of that $7 million, I doubt that that will have any great impact on the matter of discrimination.
I know that this problem of attempting to equalize freight rates across Canada is a difficult one. I am sure it is difficult; otherwise the board of transport commissioners, in making their awards, would have made the freight rates equal. Whenever you get a

Supply-Transport
difference in freight rates because of competitive rates in central Canada and higher rates on the prairies and elsewhere, and then get the railways in a position where they need an increase in revenue, in a situation like that it is extremely difficult to bring the competitive rates up sufficiently to provide for that increase and hence to assist in equalization. Even with all of the good recommendations of the royal commission, I do not think freight rates in themselves can be equalized without exception throughout Canada unless something more is done. Instead of a $7 million subsidy only, I say that the federal government should be prepared to subsidize the financial needs of the Canadian railways-both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.- to whatever extent is necessary in order to provide equal freight rates throughout all parts of Canada. We on the prairies suffer because of a national policy which meant higher freight rates and tariff walls. I think the time has now arrived when the government should implement a policy which will, in fact, once and for all permanently remove discrimination and that the government should take into consideration the proposal set forth in the submission of the Saskatchewan government to the royal commission, namely, after all other steps have been taken to remove discrimination, to consider whatever subsidy is necessary in order that discrimination may be finally removed.
I notice that while the report does not recommend that the board of transport -commissioners acquire the jurisdiction of handling truck traffic in interprovincial trade, nevertheless the royal commission suggests that parliament should consider dealing with the matter of truck competition in interprovincial trade. If the government would equalize freight rates throughout Canada, then I for one am all for the board of transport commissioners or some other government body having control over trucks in interprovincial trade. But until that time comes I shall view with misgiving any acquiring, by the board of transport commissioners or by any other government body, of control over truck rates in interprovincial trade. On the prairies we have no water competition. The truck competition that we have is relatively small, but nevertheless it is a growing competition. I am afraid that in some respects the railway companies are pricing themselves out of the market. Freight rates on automobiles from Oshawa and Windsor to Regina are apparently so high now that fleets of trucks can bring new automobiles into Saskatchewan at a considerable saving. I have here a bulletin put out by the Saskatchewan Motor Dealers' Association; and it refers to one truck dealer in Saskatchewan who saved $4,400 out of a

total freight bill of $7,000, by bringing his trucks in saddle-mounted or by a piggy-back type of transportation.
If, in addition to the discrimination which already exists, the government should take control of the trucking industry in interprovincial traffic without first having removed discrimination, then that can only result in further -discrimination against the prairies, British Columbia, the maritimes and those areas of Canada outside of the central provinces. Before any move is made to control the trucking industry I say that the first and the most important move is to undertake effective steps to remove -discrimination and to bring about implementation of the suggestion in this report that equalization in freight rates should be accomplished. I hope the government will -bring in during this session whatever amendments it thinks are necessary. I hope it will take whatever action is necessary to see that the board of transport commissioners conclude their general inquiry into freight rates and -deal with this matter of discrimination -and equalization which, in the fina-l analysis, even under this report, is left to the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.


Heber Harold Hatfield: Just before the dinner recess I asked the minister a question in regard to -select territory on the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National railway. I understand that the Canadian Pacific railway -point is Boundary. Boundary is east of Megantic. That is not a comparable point with Diamond Junction. That is about 125 miles short of the point called Diamond Junction.
In New Brunswick a person shipping over the Canadian Pacific railway has less advantage than a person in New Brunswick shipping over the Canadian National railway. This point of Boundary should- be changed to Farnham, Quebec. I see that the only recommendation the commission make is that section 6 of the act should be changed in regard to keeping a separate account so that they will conform to the present practice of breaking the law. I have never heard of a recommendation like that before. At present it seems that the railways pay no attention to section 6 of the act. I cannot find out how the accounts of the Maritime Freight Rates Act are kept. The government knows where the rates are in effect. It looks to me as though the shipper in Nova Scotia gets more advantage than the shipper in New Brunswick. The shipper in Newfoundland would get still more advantage.
In regard to export trade the act refers to shipments between Fredericton and Saint

John, and from Fredericton to Liverpool. The act defines freight between Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick. All the export freight originates north of Fredericton, New Brunswick, or practically all of it. There is practically no advantage whatever in this part of the act. I do not suppose that half a dozen carloads of freight originates in Fredericton, or between Fredericton and Saint John for export; therefore the shippers north of Fredericton have no advantage, and that is where practically 90 per cent of the export freight in New Brunswick originates.
I should like the minister to look into this. The act should be amended regardless of the recommendation of the commission. They do not do anything but recommend that the act be repealed so that the railways can conform with what they have done. They have broken the law all along since September 26, 1926, and the commission wants them to continue to break the law. That is all they recommend in the report. It is something like the flour milling report.
Now, with regard to trucking competition-


An hon. Member:: Combination.


Heber Harold Hatfield: You are forcing trucking competition. The increase in freight rates is forcing every person into the trucking business. I agree there should be some dominion regulation with regard to trucking, but so long as you go on increasing your freight rates to the east and west, something has to be done. Ontario and Quebec have the advantages of the trucks and of the railways. They have all the advantages. Something has to be done in the east and the west so that they will have a decent rate into the central markets. So long as you maintain the markets in the two provinces of central Canada and you keep building up those provinces under the defence act, and in every other way, something will have to be done between the railways in eastern Canada and the railways in western Canada, and also something will have to be done about the trucks. I know the railways are going to put themselves out of business if they keep on increasing their rates.
There is a very bad trucking arrangement now between the provinces. There should be some uniformity in the regulations between provinces. You can carry so much on a truck in one province and so much in another province. When you get to the border of another province you have to change. In other words, in the province of Quebec you cannot operate a truck on Sunday. If a trucker picks up a load in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick and gets to the Quebec border on Saturday, he has to
Supply-Transport
lay up over Sunday. The railways do not stop for Sunday. They are allowed to operate on Sunday. They go right on. The trucker has to stop and has to wait there until Monday morning before he can start off with his truck again. He has to wait until after twelve o'clock on Sunday night.
This week I had occasion to send a truck to Montreal for a piece of machinery. The piece of machinery could not be carried by freight; it had to be carried very carefully on a truck. We did not think it was advisable to put it in a railway car. That piece of machinery had to be hauled in pieces to the United States border on a small truck, on account of the regulations in the province of Quebec. Then it could be taken with a large truck from the border a distance of some five hundred or six hundred miles to its destination in New Brunswick. There are all kinds of different regulations. They have the same trouble in the United States. You can take a certain load over some state roads, and when you get to the border of another state you have to leave part of your load and come back and get it. There should be some regulation with regard to trucks, a federal regulation. So long as you keep increasing the freight rates you are bound to have trucking, and you are bound to have truck competition, especially east and west.
I should like the minister to take all these things into consideration. With regard to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, as it is now, after you get up to Diamond Junction boundary the rate is built up to take all the advantage of the 20 per cent that the maritime provinces get. Diamond Junction boundary on the Canadian Pacific Railway should be changed to Sherbrooke or Magog or Farnham, a comparable point with the Canadian National railway point. The Canadian Pacific railway shipper from New Brunswick should not be discriminated against.


Mr. Sluder:: I should like to join with
others for a minute in welcoming this report. The west has been waiting for a report of this kind for many, many years. If its object of removing some of the grievances that the west has carried for these many- years is fulfilled it will have accomplished what it set out to do.
I should like briefly to refer to two items. One is the recommendation of a federal subsidy to cover a portion of the costs between the east and west from Fort William to Sudbury. I think a tribute is due to the present leader of the opposition in the province of Saskatchewan. So far as my knowledge goes, he is one of the first men in Canada



X976 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
to bring to our attention the need of a subsidy to equalize the rates between the east and west in that area.
Then, the other point to which I should like to refer is a reference to a railway in my constituency of Maple Creek. That reference appears at page 133 of the report, where the Fill-the-Gap association presented its report to the commission regarding the necessity that has existed in that area ever since the country was first settled. The pioneers in that country came there about forty years ago, one of the incentives being that they were promised a railway at that time. At the present time there is a railway, but there is a round-trip backhaul of about 200 miles. These people must suffer because of increased freight rates on their grain, increased rates on their livestock as well as other rates. Then they have to suffer the depreciation in the value of the livestock that has travelled that extra distance over a railway, slow as railways can be - on some of the branch lines in western Canada.
It is not overestimating at all to say that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost by farmers in those areas because of the increased freight rates, and in my opinion the railway itself has lost large sums of money by this backhaul which could be eliminated by the completion of only thirty-five miles of line up the two branch lines and make it possible to ship livestock and grain direct.
As everyone knows, these people are twenty-five miles from the nearest railway. One can imagine the difficulties they encounter, particularly in wintertime, when they are locked in for months at a time without any access to those services which we in our modern civilization would ordinarily demand. They are long distances from doctors and the other amenities of life. These people have been in that position for so long that they have now adopted the attitude that unless something is done soon it will never be done. This subject has been discussed for so many years that they have abandoned hope of ever having that which was promised them at the beginning.
When one waits all one's life for a train it is as bad as waiting all one's life for those other things for which one has wished since boyhood. I believe the time has come when the people of that area might rightfully demand from the powers who control these railways either that the railway be completed, or that some alternative method be devised to alleviate the desperate situation there. Otherwise they will have to abandon hope absolutely. Therefore I would ask that the government, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the board of transport commissioners use

their influence to contribute to some extent to the permanency of the district so as to fulfil, before it is too late, the expectations of the pioneers of that country.
Mr. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word or two on the matter of transportation, and the various activities which come under the direction of the Minister of Transport. I shall say nothing whatever about the report of the royal commission on transportation. There have been a good many speeches on that already, and they have covered the field very well. I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
At this time too I would extend my congratulations to the newly appointed parliamentary assistant to the minister. I had four points in mind with which I should like to deal. Perhaps I should have waited until they were called, but I thought if I dealt with them now we would save time later.
The first of these, one with which I have dealt before, is the discriminatory rate on soybeans from the western Ontario area to Toronto. The soybean growers pay the same rate as is paid on flaxseed. Yet it is just as easy to transport soybeans as to transport wheat or coarse grains. On the other hand I realize that the transportation of flaxseed is a different and more difficult matter. Therefore I would ask the parliamentary assistant to look into that matter.
Then, there is another sore point across the country, and particularly in my area, in connection with the collection of radio licence fees. Since putting a question on the order paper some time ago I have had a number of letters in protest against some of the things that have happened. In one instance a certain man had come to a neighbourhood and sold licence fees through the years. Last year however, either because the man had died or had got a better job, or for some other reason, he did not make the customary call. In consequence the radio inspector who was making a check penalized this man and a good many of his neighbours who, because they had been waiting for the annual call of the man in question, had failed to get their licences. The man had promised that he would come each year. They failed to obtain their licences, not because they were trying to evade the law but because they were trying to do business through their friend. Many people think that a radio licence is more a nuisance than anything else, and I believe much credit would come to the government if it were to abolish the licence altogether, and have done with it.

The next item with which I shall deal has reference to the fund set up for the elimination of dangerous crossings. I doubt whether the crossing to which I shall now refer is in need of a subway or overpass. However it is on highway No. 22 just east of Calamity Corners at London. Some years ago there was a serious accident at that point, upon which occasion the hon. member for Middlesex West approached the department. The superintendent 'of the Stratford division inspected the crossing and said, "Well, it is clear. There is good vision from all directions, and it would cost $4,000 to instal warning signals". Strange as it may seem several accidents have happened there. There is bush both east and west to the north of the highway, and apparently it is not as easy to see a train at that point as one would imagine.
The result was that on March 31 of this year four American tourists were killed at that crossing. I should think that $4,000 would be a small price to pay when one considers that already four lives have been lost, and that there have been other accidents as well. Now, with the building of the new high school at Arva, twice a day the school busses will have to cross that dangerous crossing. I am hoping, along with the hon. member for Middlesex West, who brought the matter to the minister's attention after another serious accident, that further investigation will be made, and that crossing signals will be installed.
Then there is the question to which I referred about three sessions ago, namely the improvement of the runways at London airport. I said at that time that apparently North Star aircraft could go anywhere in the world but to London. In these days, with the jet fighter aircraft longer runways will be required. I would hope therefore that the minister would take care of this matter, for the benefit of the London area.


Lionel Chevrier: May I comment on the railway grade crossing accident to which the hon. member referred? Not only has this matter been brought to my attention at this time, it was raised also by the hon. member for Middlesex West. It was a serious accident and the board of transport commissioners are conducting an investigation. The question of protection is one for the authorities owning or controlling the highway. If it is a municipal or county road, then the municipality or the county council would have to make application to the board to have some sort of wigwag or signal protection. I am sure that if the municipalities concerned were to do that, in view of the seriousness of the accident the board would give it careful
Supply-Transport
consideration. My experience has been that where the cost is not too high the board as a rule grants the application.


Harry Oliver White: This is number 22 provincial highway.


Lionel Chevrier: Then the application would be made by the province.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take up much of the time of the committee but I must express my disapproval of one thing that is taking place in my section of the country. This is an old settled farming district populated by people of English, Irish and Scotch descent, although there are also other nationalities. I consider this district to be second to none.
We are informed that our passenger train service is to be cut off completely for a distance of 82 railroad miles, which would be about 100 highway miles.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is this?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Between Palmerston and Kincardine. Kincardine is on the shores of lake Huron and at the end of the line, while Palmerston is the divisional point where you change to go to different parts of western Ontario. Tenders have been called for to provide a mail service by truck. I am informed that from 157 to 200 bags of mail are sent up this line daily which will give some idea of the number of people being served.
We are located in a snow belt and there have been times in my day and age when even the railroad was tied up with snow for as long as three weeks. It will be realized how difficult it will be to transport mail oy truck. I am informed that these trucks will have to move on schedule and be at a certain place at a certain time. If the elements say you are not moving, you just stay in a snowbank and you may be there for days.
Many people will be thrown out of work, not only those employed on the railroad but those who carry mail from the station to the post office. The trucks will now deliver direct to the post office. This change will be rather severe on some of these men. Not long ago the government took over the Temiscouata railroad and I should like to ask the minister what was the operating loss on that road and what population is served by it?
There are at least 100,000 people being served by this line. I do not intend to discuss freight rates but I should like to tell a true story. You sometimes hear of people shooting the bull but last week I bought a bull and shipped him from Montreal to my home

Supply-Transport
town of Brussels. You should have seen the expressions on the faces of the expressmen when they had to lift the bull out of the express car. It will be seen what kind of mess our freight rates are in when I state that I was able to ship that bull cheaper by express than by freight.
This matter of cutting off the passenger train service is not a political issue because the hon. member for Wellington North spoke about this matter this afternoon. I was not in the chamber when he spoke but he must be affected and felt that there was something wrong because he is on the government side of the house. We do not want this service discontinued.
I understand that it is still intended to run one freight train a day, but they intend to take off the two passenger trains per day which are now operating. It will mean that these people will have no passenger train service at all and only one freight train a day. Express and mail will be handled by truck. If this matter was important to the hon. member for Wellington North, it is doubly important to me and even more important to people living farther up the line. We are about 40 miles from the end of the line.
As I say, we are in a snow belt. While the facilities for the removing of snow are much better today than they used to be, the fact remains that when you have a storm lasting nine days, which happens quite often, you just cannot move at all. I would ask the minister to take this change into serious consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. gentleman that the discontinuance of a train or any service is of importance. This matter is so important that parliament decided in 1903 that services could not be discontinued or a service curtailed without a hearing before the board of transport commissioners. When the hon. member for Wellington North brought this matter to my attention this afternoon I indicated to him at some length just what procedure would have to be followed by the railway before it could stop the service.
The hon. member who has just spoken seems to be of the opinion that this matter is settled and decided, but such is not the case. An application will have to be made by the Canadian National Railways to discontinue the train service, and) the municipalities affected^ or individuals if they so desire, can protest and the board, which is a court of record, will determine the issue. I am sure that the speeches made by the hon. member for Wellington North and the hon. gentleman 
who has just taken his seat will be brought to the attention of the board of transport commissioners.
The hon, member asked some questions about the purchase of the Temiscouata railway by the government. The circumstances there are entirely different. The Temiscouata railway was a continuation of a line which the Canadian National Railways could take over. The population in that area is about 35,000 or 40,000. There were no operating results of the Temiscouata railway available, as I indicated to the house when the bill was brought down. If the hon. gentleman would take the trouble to look at that debate, which is now two years old, I think he will find all the information he wants.


Howard Charles Green: What profits have been made since the C.N.R. took it over?


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend will ask that question next week when the railways and shipping committee is sitting and the president of the Canadian National Railways is here, I believe that would be the best way to pursue the matter. I think the answer will be that there are no separate accounts kept of the four various regions-prairies, Pacific, maritimes and central-that make up the national system.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I would draw the minister's attention to the fact that whether or not a decision has been reached they have already asked for tenders for the carriage of mail by truck. They have gone a long way if they do not intend to take off the trains.


Lionel Chevrier: I cannot be responsible for anyone asking for tenders. I can be responsible only for the matters under my jurisdiction, and I am telling my hon. friend that the Canadian National Railways must have the authority of the board of transport commissioners before curtailing the service. That is the practice.


Mr. Hansell:: I want to say just one tiny word in respect to the report of the royal commission on transportation, and that word will be confined to one subject in which I am particularly interested. I have not read the report with meticulous care, but I have glanced through it quite thoroughly in an attempt to find whether or not the subject of coal subventions to railways was dealt with; and I have looked in vain. The only reference I can find to the matter is on page 85, where we are given information which of course we already know. I shall take a moment to read it:
Rates on coal were introduced in 1925 by arrangement with the federal government and reduced to $8 a ton in 1934 as an emergency measure to relieve unemployment in Alberta. At present the rate is

$8.40 of which the shipper pays $5.90 and the government $2.50. The normal rate from Drum-heller to Toronto is $13.10.
That was all the consolation I found as I browsed through this report in an endeavour to find out what might be expected in future in respect to subventions on coal. I know, of course, that the actual payment of coal subventions comes under the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys; nevertheless subventions are paid the railway companies for the movement of coal, and I had rather expected that something would be said about it in the report. I am particularly interested because of the present threat of higher freight rates, and the further threat of the removal of subventions. If this should be done I am afraid the coal mining industry of western Canada will fold up, that its days will be numbered. I am glad to see the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys in his seat. He is one of the Alberta representatives, and I trust that he will view his responsibilities with such seriousness that he will attempt to keep the coal mining industry of Canada on its feet. It will not be kept on its feet if there is an increase in the freight structure affecting coal, or if coal subventions are removed. I say this to him now, and perhaps will have a little more to say when his estimates come before the house.
There is another matter I should like to take up with the minister, departing now from the report of the transportation commission. At times the coal mining industry of western Canada is seriously affected by a shortage of cars. I am sure the minister is aware of that situation, and perhaps it is not an easy matter to deal with. This is a serious thing because when there is a shortage of cars the coal mines close down and several thousand coal miners are out of work for perhaps several days until cars arrive on the scene. That is not a good thing, but it has happened many times over the last few years, to the detriment of the coal mining industry itself. In the first place the coal miners are laid off three or four days a week, although of course not every week. The other point is that even though they are not operating and actually mining coal, the mines have to stay open. The power plants have to be kept running; many of the staff, engineers and so forth, have to be at their posts, and this is an added burden upon the coal mining companies. This all results from the shortage of cars. I wish the minister would reply on this point, because it is serious and I do not want to have to wire or telephone or write to him when that happens. I would have to do it every week or two, and anyway it is not my business to do that. I emphasize the
Supply-Transport
seriousness of the situation and beg the minister to do something to remedy it.
My particular interest in my constituency, of course, lies in the Crowsnest pass. The Canadian Pacific Railway runs through that pass; nevertheless the Minister of Transport, if his title means anything, must use his influence in respect to all transportation problems. There is one other small matter I want to bring up, though it does not affect my constituency and perhaps I should not mention it. Lately it has been my privilege to take a trip or two over the Canadian National between Edmonton and Ottawa. I am amazed at what I would term the deterioration of the roadbed of the Canadian National Railways in that territory. I know that you have to spend1 a lot of money when you begin reinforcing and repairing roadbeds. I do not know whether the minister has been over that road. I usually travel on the other railway because it is more convenient.


Lionel Chevrier: I go over it every year.


Ernest George Hansell: I am pleased to note that the minister is alive to tell the tale. My only consolation as I was going over that railroad recently was that I had taken out three days' insurance at twenty-five cents a day. It was rather slim consolation, because they would only pay my estate $5,000. I thought the train was going to jump those tracks at any moment. The minister has been over the road, and he knows it. He must have eaten a meal on the railroad, I do not know whether the minister drinks-he must drink something. I shall challenge the minister to sit in the club car of that train anywhere between Edmonton and Ottawa, pick up a glass of gingerale and drink it without spilling it on his vest. If he can do that, he is a better conjurer than I am. When he eats his meals he must be careful or he will find he is feeding his ear instead of his mouth. I do not know if that situation can be remedied. I do not suppose a railway is going to spend several million dollars just to help the passengers drink gingerale, but the roadbeds are deteriorating and I believe something should be done.


Lionel Chevrier: May I be allowed to reply to the two points raised by the member for Macleod. I am sorry that I must tell him I have not been advised of any shortage of coal cars in western Canada. Over the last few weeks, months as a matter of fact, I have been advised of a shortage of box cars for the movement of grain. I am prepared to deal with that, but since it has not been raised there is no point in discussing it. I shall ask my officers if they are aware of any threatened shut-down of the mines

Supply-Transport
because of a shortage of cars. My experience over the years has been that we have always had a substantial number of coal cars in Canada, but that at certain times of the year we were short of box cars. Fortunately, at the present time, I believe the box car situation has remedied itself. 1 shall be glad to bring to the attention of the Canadian National Railways the condition to which the member for Macleod refers.
As I said a moment ago, I go to the western part of Canada and out to the coast once a year. I cannot recollect any experience such as that outlined by the member. However, I am sure he would not bring it up unless he was quite satisfied that the facts were as he alleges. I shall be glad1 to bring it to the attention of the officers of the railway.


Mr. Shaw:: The minister indicated in the course of his remarks that he had not been asked to comment on the subject of grain cars. I would be only too glad to ask him at this moment to do so. Back in the part of Canada whence I come, the situation has been extremely critical. In my own town, for example, there are approximately seven elevators. Two months ago they were packed to the roof with 700,000 bushels of wheat, much of which was damp and tough. It was estimated that in that area there were approximately 500,000 bushels of grain still on the farms, much of it damp and tough.
I am fully aware of the problem with which the board is confronted in connection with not only drying that type of grain, but the sale of it. With the approach of warm weather, the situation is going to become even more critical. On top of that, of course, is the fact that many of these farmers, having been unable to sell their grain, are experiencing certain financial difficulties. I understand that the wheat board did consult with the railroads, urging that there be a better allocation of grain cars for the movement of this grain. This is what I observed in my constituency. Where we had two lines of railroad, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, paralleling each other, both companies were moving in quite a number of grain cars. But on the line between Red Deer and Calgary for example, where we had no comparable competition, the Canadian Pacific appeared just a bit remiss in what I might call its duty in moving in these grain cars. I fully appreciate the problem, but I would ask the minister if there has been any appreciable change within the last month, and if not what these farmers might be able to expect in the way of relief from the current problem.


Lionel Chevrier: As I indicated before, the
situation, while it was rather serious some weeks ago, has bettered itself substantially, as I shall indicate in a moment. I believe the causes were, first, the switchmen's strike in the United States, and then the blizzard in western Canada which tied up a number of box cars in certain areas. Then again, there is always a heavy movement of paper and other export products from Canada to the United States. This shortage has led to protests from various bodies in western Canada as well as other parts of Canada.
The picture on April 9, as it has been handed to me, is as follows. I should like to put on Hansard the unfavourable position of box cars generally from February 16 to date, because it was at that time the position was the worst. On February 16, Canadian box cars on United States lines numbered 29,989; United States box cars on Canadian lines amounted to 13,544. Therefore, the unfavourable balance to Canadian lines was 16,445. A month later, on March 16, Canadian box cars on United States lines had reached the total of .31,682; United States box cars on Canadian lines numbered 15,530. The unfavourable balance to Canadian lines was 16,152. On March 30, Canadian box cars on United States lines numbered 31,725; United States box cars on Canadian lines amounted to 17,300. The unfavourable balance was 14,425. On April 8, 29,132 Canadian box cars on United States lines; 18,327 United States box cars on Canadian lines. The unfavourable balance was 10,805.
It will be noted from the above statement that there has been a reduction between the earliest date, February 16, and April 8 of some 800 box cars on United States lines. On the other hand there has been a substantial increase of United States box cars on Canadian lines, to the amount of 4,800, making a net improvement in the unfavourable position of Canadian box cars of 5,640 cars. On March 9, which was the peak in the interchange position, the unfavourable balance stood at 18,935. Therefore since that time an improvement of over 10,000 cars has taken place. A moment ago I said that the unfavourable balance as of April 8 was 10,805. The normal position is about 8,000 in Canada. We have therefore almost reached the normal position. That is indicated by a letter which I have in my possession from the chief commissioner of the Canadian wheat board dated April 9. I quote from it. It states:
I am pleased to advise that the improvement in Vancouver loadings is continuing and although we are on demurrage on some of our boats in Vancouver, if the railways will continue to step up their

loadings and will move the wheat quickly to Vancouver, we can cut down on prospective demurrage claims.
I am glad to advise also that the over-all car loadings are better. On Friday we had close to 1,000 cars loaded with grain in the whole of the western division, and on Saturday, 870 cars, the break-down by provinces being Manitoba, 121; Saskatchewan, 409; Alberta, 340; and the break-down between railways, C.P.R., 430; C.N.R., 428; N.A.R., 12.
Then he adds:
The following boats are either at Fort William or due at Fort William:
Now at Fort William:	Hochelaga, Coverdale,
Ashcroft, Lemoyne, Stadacona, Hagarty.
Due Tuesday:	Prescott.
Due Wednesday:	Westmount.
We expect these boats will load within a day or two, just as soon as they can get into elevators. This early opening is quite encouraging.
I think the position has bettered itself because of the two things which were done by the department officials and which I mentioned before, but more particularly because of the committees which were established among the railways, the shipping companies, the Department of Transport officials and others who were interested in the movement of grain. Those people had preliminary meetings; and because of the action which they took they were, I think, instrumental in bringing about a position which is almost back to normal, I am happy to say.


Mr. Nowlan:: There has been a great deal
of discussion this afternoon and evening with respect to the report of the royal commission on the freight rates structure. Much of that discussion has come from western members, and it might be expected that those of us from the east would also deal with this problem at some length. Certainly we have both suffered from the same disability with respect to the incidence of freight rates. The fact that possibly those of us in the east may not be quite as vocal as some of the western members in expressing their grievances with respect to this matter would not for one moment suggest that the load is any more easy to bear.
As I think the minister knows, we have in the maritime provinces, representing the various provincial governments and boards of trade, a freight rate commission which has given this matter considerable attention. I am advised by some officers of that commission that they are meeting now and over the week end and are giving further study to the report of this royal commission. Of course their findings or recommendations are not necessarily those which members of this committee generally or any one of them in particular would accept. But we all realize 80709-126
S upply-Transport
that this is a complicated and involved subject; and certainly, so far as I am concerned, I would prefer to have their analysis of the situation, and their criticisms and suggestions with respect to the report, before attempting to deal adequately with this matter before the house. I simply make that as an explanation for the reason why I at any rate am not attempting to deal with the report of this commission tonight. But I presume that at some time in the near future the minister's estimates will again be before us, and probably on the matter of the Maritime Freight Rates Act or some other item such as that we will then have the opportunity to discuss the report of the commission, having regard to its incidence in the maritime provinces. Certainly we have a tremendous interest in this problem. It is an old one as far as the east is concerned. The matter of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, to which the royal commission referred, has been of tremendous help to the maritimes in the past but that help has decreased, unfortunately, or diminished owing to the lessening of freight rates in Ontario and Quebec because of the competition of motor trucks and the other factors with which we are all familiar.
The hon. member for Cumberland was a member of the government of the province of Nova Scotia which first started the agitation for the old Duncan commission or the maritime rights commission. Out of that maritime rights commission came the Duncan report; and as a result of that report we obtained the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Certainly all of us in the east appreciate the work which was done by that commission and the leadership which was given to it by the hon. member for Cumberland and others. As I said, the effect or the benefit of the act is far less today than we should like to have it. Personally, I think the whole matter will have to be reviewed in the near future. Consideration should be given to amendments to the act. But as I said, I would not attempt to discuss this matter in detail now because I think we should first of all receive the benefit of all the advice we can get on that subject.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer briefly. It is one that is not covered by the royal commission at all but it is one coming under the aegis of the minister, although unfortunately there is no specific item in his department for it. Generally, it would come under marine services. It is the unfortunate fact that we at least in the east have not at this time-

Supply-Transport
and I do not believe those on the west coast have either-a coastguard service to be of assistance to those on the sea.
We had in the east last year a most unfortunate tragedy, and there have been many of them. The one of which I am thinking at the moment occurred last fall, when fishing boats were at sea. A tornado swept up the coast. The weather report had been given at midnight saying the weather was fine; and the men in the little boats largely went to sleep feeling that everything was all right. An hour later hurricane warnings were suddenly issued; but there was no one to tell the crews of those boats that the weather had changed so quickly and so dramatically. In the early hours of the morning the storm swept up and some of those boats were drifting for days. At least one of them was lost, with the loss of five of the crew. For three days one could hear the wireless telephone trying to communicate with someone, trying to get a rescue ship directed to their attention. Appeals were made to private ships. They went out. They in turn appealed to the United States coastguard service; and we owe a tremendous debt to the work of the United States coastguard. That service has always responded whenever we have called upon it for assistance. In this case they answered the call. One cutter was 91 miles away. This was after the boats had been drifting for twenty-four hours. They said, "We will be there in six hours". They came but still they could not find the boat. They called in another United States cutter, and we had two American coastguard cutters patrolling there for two or three days. Finally after a week one of these boats, which was lost, was found, with the bodies of three of the crew afloat in the cabin, partially submerged; they had been alive no one knows how long. But the boat had capsized and they were adrift and floating in the water in the cabin. If an adequate service had been available, that tragedy could have been averted. That is only one of many tragedies of the kind which occur along the coast line of the Atlantic and also, undoubtedly, on the Pacific. The only hope of averting them is to call for the assistance of the United States coastguard. I know that the search and rescue squadron of the R.C.A.F. has done a tremendous amount in connection with searching for missing boats, and we owe to the men of the R.C.A.F. a great debt for the work they have done. But aeroplanes, even Cansos and amphibians, cannot land in rough seas. They cannot find ships in a fog nor can they find small boats such as fishing craft and similar ones.

We have off the Nova Scotia coast today a tremendous tourist industry. We have the swordfishing industry, which is advertised all over the world, bringing tourists there in small boats by the score, going out in rough waters and trusting in time of trouble to the United States coastguard to come to their assistance. The minister might tell us that instructions have been given for co-ordination between the R.C.A.F. and other ships under his control, ships of the department of marine and probably cutters of the R.C.M.P. as well. If there have been instructions for such co-ordination, Mr. Chairman, it does not work, because there were no boats under the Canadian flag available for the episode off Woods Harbour for days after the tragedy occurred. I believe it was four days after the ship was first reported missing before the R.C.M.P. cutter got there, and the Americans had searched during that period of time.
I am not criticizing the men of the R.C.M.P. or others. We just have not got the ships available. It is no good to have co-ordination with a ship on the Northumberland strait if you need it for the Yarmouth light or vice versa. I suggest it is a reflection upon Canada that we are depending upon our United States friends in times such as these. I do think economically it is bad because the loss of life and the loss of property, and the threat of this loss hanging over the heads of the industry, fishing, tourist and otherwise, is an economic liability which could be and should be obviated in the future. I realize the necessity for economy and all the rest of it, but we also realize, sir, that even in times such as these it is necessary not to have too much economy if this country is to prosper as a united nation. We in the east, and probably the same thing is true in the west,' think that this is a service which is deficient today. It is a service which we need. I am asking the minister and urging him and this government to give attention to it and that within the reasonably near future a coastguard service be created, which will be of real assistance to us and will help to maintain the traditions of the sea of which we are so proud in Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: The matter of a coastguard service for Canada was debated and discussed in this house at some length on at least two different occasions each year. The result of the discussions was that an interdepartmental committee, consisting of a number of representatives of government departments, was established to consider co-ordination of marine search and rescue services. The committee arrived at certain very definite conclusions, which were outlined later by

the Minister of National Defence in the house, since the responsibility was his, and is his hereafter. But since at the time it concerned the department over which I presided I feel that I should make some reply to the statements which my hon. friend has made, and which are not at all accurate.
The decision which was taken by the committee was that the R.C.A.F. be designated as the co-ordinating agency through its centres at Halifax, Trenton and Vancouver, and other government departments concerned were to co-operate fully with the R.C.A.F. That meant that the R.C.A.F. were given the task of co-ordinating the various government ships such as R.C.M.P. patrol boats, Department of Transport ships and Department of National Defence ships, in conjunction too with the air services branch of national defence. The R.C.A.F. is to set up a system of communication, with the other departments co-operating, so that casualties may be reported promptly. Necessary publicity is given to this search and rescue organization so that the public and interested agencies will know the appropriate action to take in the event of a casualty. Copies of this directive have been issued to each of the district marine agencies of the Department of Transport and to all other departmental ships concerned.
I have here a detailed list of those instructions. When the decision was taken and approved of, the Minister of National Defence made a statement in the house outlining the position. At that time he indicated a number of cases where government services had gone to the assistance of United States casualties, United States ships found in distress, and they were far more numerous, if my memory serves me correctly, than the cases where the United States coastguard cutters had come to the assistance of Canadians. I do not mean by that that there is no cooperation between the two. There is. But in case the committee should have the mistaken opinion that it is only the United States coastguard cutters that come to the assistance of our people, may I say that such is not the case.
Another feature of this is that in the Department of Transport at least clear and definite instructions have been given to our ships-and I am sure that obtains in other departments-that the moment they are advised by the R.C.A.F. of a casualty they are to leave their duties and go to the assistance of the ship in distress. I am not familiar with the case to which my hon. friend refers, but I can tell him this, that the committee that dealt with it gave it very 80709-1261
Supply-Transport
careful consideration. They spent many months dealing with the problem. They heard evidence from persons interested on the west coast and from other interested departments, and came to the conclusion that the best method which could be adopted was that of co-ordination under the direction of the R.C.A.F.


Mr. McLure:: It was not my intention to take part at any great length in the debate that has been in progress for quite a little while. But since it has been centred around the report of the royal commission on transportation, perhaps the committee might think that Prince Edward Island was a hundred per cent in favour of the report if I did not say something. I should like to draw attention to a few things with which I myself cannot agree.
Royal commissions are always very valuable in obtaining a great deal of information, and they are fact finding; but the unfortunate part of it is that when they present their reports to the government the government still has the right to ignore their findings and not to carry them into effect. I know that is true of a royal commission we had in 1926 which was known as the Andrew Rae Duncan commission. It brought in some excellent recommendations to the government, and I must say that it was a long time before we could get any government to implement those recommendations.
To my province of Prince Edward Island transportation is a vital thing. The union of Canada was formed on transportation. The upper provinces did not have any seaports. Their trade was growing. They looked around and inveigled New Brunswick and Nova Scotia into the union because they saw there two wonderful seaports, namely, that of Saint John and the best seaport on the Atlantic coast, Halifax. After that, in 1873, my province was courted into this union as well. The royal commission, as set out at page 171 of the report, gives the terms of confederation. It says this:
Efficient steam service for the convenience of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the dominion.
That is only part of the terms of confederation. That, to a certain extent, has been implemented in the last few years, by giving us certain daily communication by the different steamers we have had such as the Prince Edward, the Charlottetown and the Abegweit. But the royal commission should have gone a step further and given a full report of the agreement of 1873. For instance,

Supply-Transport
in addition to what I have already quoted, the following should have been added:
And such other charges as may be incident to and connected with the service which, by the British North America Act of 1867, appertain to the general government and as are or may be allowed to the other provinces.
That agreement was made some seventy years ago. Did the royal commission expect that Prince Edward Island would be satisfied with the conditions that existed seventy years ago, when one of the terms of union was supposed to have been equal transportation as appertains to the other provinces in the light of conditions as they changed from time to time? This is a question which it would take me too long to discuss tonight. However, there may be occasions later on when I can do so.
Another matter to which I should like to refer I have not been able to find in the report, but perhaps I have not been astute enough to get through it and to find the reference to it. The question is:	Who has the
right to set rates on ferry boats? This has always been a subject of contention and disagreement between myself and the smiling and genial Minister of Transport. However, I should like to find a suggestion from the royal commission as to who has that right.
When the excellent ship the Abegweit was turned over to the subcontractor of transportation, the Canadian National Railways, for purposes of operation, I raised the objection that she should not be turned over unless there was a proper agreement, and that agreement would be that the boat was to be operated under the terms of union of 1873.
This has been ignored entirely. When we joined confederation there were certain terms that have already been quoted. These are ignored by the subcontractors. I think it was still up to the government to see that we had a contract whereby, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned, the boat would be operated according to the terms of confederation. However, that is another point upon which we can spend1 some time later.
Another matter with which I should like to deal is the Wood Island-Caribou ferry service. This is a system operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited, and it is one of the best transportation systems Prince Edward Island has. The company started in a small way, and the traffic has grown to the point where, today, they want larger boats for the accommodation of the service. I understand that a few days ago they presented a brief to the Minister of Transport and the government in this connection.
I do not think I should deal with the brief because I have no doubt that in connection

with it certain promises, which in a short time will be made public, have been made. I do want to say, however, that the minister should be very careful to fulfil all the recommendations in that brief. The company is deserving of the very best treatment from the government. It has given a good service; and had it not been for the ferry service we would have been entirely isolated from the mainland at the time of the railway strike. As it was we were isolated because, through the mistake of someone-I do not know who it was, nor do I want to blame anyone directly for it, until we have a final report- the car ferry was tied up. Here was a boat operating on the king's highway, as it is known in the terms of confederation. They had no right to go on strike; the government should have ordered them to continue or to get out. Then we would have had communication at least by car and truck.
However, before the strike was over the government, or someone, found out they were in error and the service was opened. Meantime the Wood Island ferry rendered a great service to the province. As I said a moment ago, I hope the Minister of Transport will take into consideration the brief presented to him on behalf of the Wood Island ferry, setting out what the company desires to do to give Prince Edward Island a better service. By doing so he will confer a great benefit on the province.
Then I would refer to another matter, namely another ferry service in the west end of the island. I know if the hon. member for Prince were here he certainly would be agitating for that ferry service. It is another link in our transportation system, if it could be got under way within the next year or so, and would be of great service to the farmers in the western part of the province.
Although my time is limited, there is one other matter I should like to mention. This has to do with the little question that comes up once in a while, namely the matter of maritime freight rates. Generally speaking, those who deal with this subject are led to believe that a subsidy is given to the maritime provinces under the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act. However, when one looks into the matter he will see there is no subsidy. I cannot find where it has been dealt with in the report at all.
For instance, from 1912 to 1926 freight rates in the maritime provinces increased by 92 per cent. During the same time general freight rates across the rest of Canada had increased by only 55 per cent. After the Duncan commission made a study of this freight rate question as it concerned Prince Edward Island and the maritimes they

brought in a recommendation that there should be equalization of rates and 20 per cent was granted.
That was not a handout or a subsidy, it was simply a matter of equalizing freight rates with the rest of Canada. When we had been paying a 92 per cent increase as against a 55 per cent increase for the rest of Canada, even the 20 per cent did not give us proper equalization. What we should have is another 20 per cent to give us any preference at all on the importation of grains and our exports of potatoes.
These freight rates have always been referred to by a number of people as a subsidy, whereas, as I have tried to explain, it is not a subsidy at all. It was due us. We were only getting equalization with the rest of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to hold up the item, but there is a point I should like to raise in connection with the Canadian National Railways. If the minister can assure me that I can deal with it on another item, I can wait.


Lionel Chevrier: I will give the hon. member that assurance now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister indicate the item?


Lionel Chevrier: Any one of the eight or ten Canadian National items.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about item 490?


Lionel Chevrier: That is all right.


Solon Earl Low: I was sorely tempted to talk at greater length on the commission report, but inasmuch as we are close to eleven o'clock I shall take only a few minutes to discuss one matter I have in mind. Before the natural resources were turned over to the provinces a number of settlements were established in northern Alberta. One of these was Fort Vermilion, which was located along the Peace river about 200 miles from Peace River town. A little later on another settlement by the name of Carcajou was settled.
The only way these settlers had of getting into the settlements or going out with their products was by river boat. Fairly substantial farms were established and the whole country became quite a producer of grains and livestock, as the minister probably knows. Very early in the history of that northland the Hudson's Bay Company established boat and barge transportation to bring in their own merchandise and to carry out the furs and other products they obtained in their trading activities.
Not long ago a competitor started running boats and barges up and down the river
Supply-Transport
and continued in competition until last spring or summer. Civilization seemed to catch up with these people and then their troubles began. The rather rigid regulations governing river and marine transport were applied and this competitor to the Hudson's Bay Company could not continue operations. The main reason was the requirement that a qualified captain should be on the boats and that there should be proper passenger facilities even on boats that were carrying livestock. The Hudson's Bay Company did not increase their facilities. The result is that as late as August 1 last year close to 100,000 bushels of grain lay on the ground, covered with canvas or tarpaulins or whatever they could get, awaiting some form of transportation.
The situation became rather serious because the people could not market their livestock either. They are faced with an almost insurmountable problem because it takes quite a long time to build a road through that north country. There is no hope of a highway being built in time to serve this area. The new navigation season is about to begin and I was wondering if the minister could not bring to the attention of his departmental officers the necessity of looking into this matter to see if it would not be possible to relax the regulations and allow the private company to operate without having qualified captains and all these other things.
The men who have been operating up and down the river for 20 or 25 years know the river just as well as any captain could know it. They have never had any serious difficulty or any wrecks that resulted in loss of life or extensive property losses. That would seem to give assurance that by relaxing the regulations somewhat there would be no disaster. I ask the minister to look into the matter and see if he cannot help these people temporarily until such time as a better method of dealing with the problem can be found.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I will.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Lionel Chevrier: Tomorrow we would like
to continue with the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Howard Charles Green: All day?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. If we are successful
in disposing of those we will take up Bill No. 196, respecting the Hamilton harbour commissioners, and Bill No. 197, to amend the Aeronautics Act. If we are so fortunate

Business of the House as to dispose of those two bills, for the remainder of the time we will take up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


Howard Charles Green: We have not yet got the bill
to amend the Aeronautics Act.


Lionel Chevrier: It will be ready for distribution tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: We cannot very well consider it on such short notice.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is any demand for delay in consideration of that bill we can go on with the bill respecting the Hamilton
harbour commissioners and then proceed with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[The following item was passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
471. Departmental administration, $1,199,818.
[Stage Direction]
Friday. April 13, 1951